Jump to content
Westeros

House of the Dragon Series Order Announced

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@The Dragon Demands

Oh, I agree with you that one should keep and include as many non-white as possible in whatever small roles there are in the background. And you really hammered home that fact with your video on them cutting characters like Chataya and Alayaya and turning Dornish ladies into men (and Tanda Stokeworth). But this doesn't really change the fact that on a whole there is effectively not much racial diversity in the books.

I mean, technically only the Salty Dornish look somewhat different than the other people of Westeros. The Stony Dornish are actually known for their fair skin and blond hair, being essentially no different from the Marcher people. There would be some darker skinned people at Sunspear - and especially within House Martell, but if we got, say, an accurate panorama shot of an assembled Dornish army then it should be about half or even two thirds white with only some of them looking like the Rhoynar. And if we had ever any scenes at Yronwood or Skyreach or with the Wyls then the people there would look exactly like the Westerosi people north of the Red Mountains.

If you want to stay faithful to the source material then there is just not a lot racial diversity to be found there. But then, I'd really not mind if some characters who are not from Westeros were not exactly white - even characters like Mysaria who would, if we follow the book description, be just as pale and fair as any other Targaryen.

One could even make Daenaera Velaryon a non-white person (and thus her children not exactly prototypical Targaryens) without causing any internal problems within the family tree considering the branch from which Dany and Jon are descended never absorbed any descendants of Aegon III back in their line.

The way to introduce more overall racial diversity on a meaningfoul level would be to make Marilda of Hull and her children have some non-white ancestry - with Driftmark being that prosperous a place in those days she could have some non-Westerosi ancestry. And if Marilda and her boys looked somewhat Asian, say, then this wouldn't even mean that Monford and Monterys and Aurane from the books - if we pretended for a moment that show and books should be more or less the same thing (GoT never featured any Velaryons, so we don't know how they look there) - would have to look different than they are since I'm not sure that this would still be recognizable after so many generations.

Hugh and Ulf could also look different, although that would feed the common narrative of non-white being the bad guys.

Although one could certainly also make Two Betrayers much more sympathetic and more rounded characters, giving us an actual explanation for their betrayal rather than just speculation, not the mention that it would be possibly to shift the blame for the betrayal more to the Green agents recruiting them to their side rather than them being just disloyal turncloaks. And especially Hugh could be portrayed as a charismatic warrior-king type of guy, who does not only draw scum to his side. The real scum in that story are the Caltrops, Prince Daeron included.

Yeah , push narrative in any sort of agenda that suits You personally.

You are basically asking for major change in many characters (betrayers, Daeron, Caltrops) so that it would suit Your modern world conceptions, ignoring that Westeros was inspired by medieval Western Europe. 

If you try to make a scum out of one of rare sympathetic Greens (major side in conflict), just that crammed in racial diversity wouldn't be portrayed negatively , you harm narrative much more than keeping to information we have from novel.

Racial issues would need to be treated with more care than by what is described in your example, and Targaryen "superiority" and treating their irresponsibly subjects as tools to achieve their selfish goals is more part of the theme. 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Yeah , push narrative in any sort of agenda that suits You personally.

Of course I'm talking about my personal opinion, I'm not talking for you here - you can do that yourself.

4 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

You are basically asking for major change in many characters (betrayers, Daeron, Caltrops) so that it would suit Your modern world conceptions, ignoring that Westeros was inspired by medieval Western Europe. 

No, I'm talking about the fact that the story as such is greatly biased against Hugh and Ulf because we really don't know anything about them (due to them not having written anything explaining their motivations) which definitely allows the writers - assuming they abandoned the limited 'fake history' approach of FaB and portray them as actual characters, not as clichés that are just evil.

And while one could use Ulf and Hugh to introduce more racial diversity - one could even make them three-dimensional characters if they were presented as fair-haired, white Valyrians (Ulf at least does have the Valyrian hair in the book, although we don't get a description of his skin). Those things don't have to go together.

4 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

If you try to make a scum out of one of rare sympathetic Greens (major side in conflict), just that crammed in racial diversity wouldn't be portrayed negatively , you harm narrative much more than keeping to information we have from novel.

Well, the Caltrops are just scum. And Daeron the Daring is scum, too, from the moment he insisted on the sacking of a town whose inhabitants had done nothing wrong. They did not declare for any side - their lords did - and they did not murder either Prince Maelor or Ser Rickard Thorne - the men and women Lady Caswell had already executed did. If you command the murder of thousands of innocents just to satisfy an irrational desire for vengeance you pretty much are scum in my book.

And how Daeron and his Caltrop allies served Hugh and Ulf numbers among the most disgusting things in the entire book. They profited from their betrayal, from the fact that these two men sacrificed their own honor by turning their cloaks, not only handing them Tumbleton on a silver platter but also enabling them to save the lives of many of their own men who would have been burned by Silverwing and Vermithor had they not turned their cloaks.

4 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

Racial issues would need to be treated with more care than by what is described in your example, and Targaryen "superiority" and treating their irresponsibly subjects as tools to achieve their selfish goals is more part of the theme.

Part of the theme in the Hugh/Ulf story is that Targaryens are not worth much/anything if they born on the wrong side of the blanket or if they are the descendants of baseborn bastards ... because that's what they are. Insofar as the blood of the dragon is concerned Hugh and Ulf are as royal as the Targaryens - but nobody wanted to see or admit that.

Theme-wise this issue definitely should be addressed. I mean, it is the same with Nettles. She, too, should have been made a princess or at least some great lady, yet the only ones who get really something out of becoming dragonriders are the Hull boys who have established connections into the royal family via Corlys and Jacaerys Velaryon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, I'm talking about the fact that the story as such is greatly biased against Hugh and Ulf because we really don't know anything about them (due to them not having written anything explaining their motivations) which definitely allows the writers - assuming they abandoned the limited 'fake history' approach of FaB and portray them as actual characters, not as clichés that are just evil.

And while one could use Ulf and Hugh to introduce more racial diversity - one could even make them three-dimensional characters if they were presented as fair-haired, white Valyrians (Ulf at least does have the Valyrian hair in the book, although we don't get a description of his skin). Those things don't have to go together.

Novel is all ready filled with various writer or faction bias, so adding even more and personal at that wouldn't really help the story. 

 I am more concerned that they adapt spirit of characters rather than their vague appearance. 

We know lot of Ulf and Hugh, and none of it is very flattering, their actions speak for themselves and are recorded by pro-Green or pro-Black historians.

They betrayed the side for who they fought and literally stabbed them in the back. 

There some characters who have material to be nuanced and less of "evil clichés", some like Ramsey or Gregor really aren't.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the Caltrops are just scum. And Daeron the Daring is scum, too, from the moment he insisted on the sacking of a town whose inhabitants had done nothing wrong. They did not declare for any side - their lords did - and they did not murder either Prince Maelor or Ser Rickard Thorne - the men and women Lady Caswell had already executed did. If you command the murder of thousands of innocents just to satisfy an irrational desire for vengeance you pretty much are scum in my book.

Daeron isn't scum in sense that Daemon, Aemond or Rhaenyra or even Aegon II are , he is actually great material for three dimensional character unlike the betrayers, burning of Bitterbridge is his low-point and certainly a war crime since murder is done indiscriminately. 

Though in that situation during the full offensive and before facing First Tumbleton there were no time for proper investigation or trials  and also letting murder of royal by commonfolk to be unpunished would be rather detrimental to stability of realm as seen in Kings Landing later. Daeron also was never in war commander of Green army, though he had agreed with decision of no quarter to Bitterbridge in his letter.

Various reports came from Bitterbridge, most of all that Sir Thorne was killed by crossbows trying to cross the bridge and after that young helpless child Maelor was torn to pieces by crowd or hacked in six pieces, what is certain is that his head was sent to Rhaenyra, so dismembering certainly happened.

Guards and smallfolk were certainly involved in his death incensed by Rhaenyras bounty, her inquisitors and war situation. 

Lady Caswell seems to found scapegoats and dealt with them to appease both sides, which is rather insulting accounting the vileness of crime. 

Quote

"All we know for certain is that by the time Lady Caswell and her knights appeared to chase off the mob, the prince was dead. Her ladyship went pale at the sight of him, Mushroom
tells us, saying, “The gods will curse us all for this.” At her command, Sly the stableboy and Willow Pound-Stone were hanged from the center span of the old bridge, along with the
man who had owned the horse Ser Rickard had stolen from the inn, who was (wrongly) thought to have assisted Thorne’s escape. Ser Rickard’s corpse, wrapped in his white cloak, Lady
Caswell sent back to King’s Landing, together with Prince Maelor’s head. The dragon’s egg she sent to Lord Hightower at Longtable, in the hopes it might assuage his wroth."

There is no mention of crossbowman,  town butcher or dealing with any of the mob. Despite all murder Lord Hightower still spared Lady Caswell's children , so he seems mostly involved in decision making.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And how Daeron and his Caltrop allies served Hugh and Ulf numbers among the most disgusting things in the entire book. They profited from their betrayal, from the fact that these two men sacrificed their own honor by turning their cloaks, not only handing them Tumbleton on a silver platter but also enabling them to save the lives of many of their own men who would have been burned by Silverwing and Vermithor had they not turned their cloaks.

Betrayers were chosen to ride dragons by Rhaenyra on Dragonstone , who profited by them largely at start of the war, they gave them weapons of mass destruction without any sort of character check.

Quote

Yet the worst crimes were those committed by the Two Betrayers, the baseborn dragonriders Hugh Hammer and Ulf White. Ser Ulf gave himself over entirely to drunkenness, “drowning himself in wine and flesh.” Mushroom says he raped three maidens every night. Those who failed to please were fed to his dragon. The knighthood that Queen Rhaenyra had conferred on him did not suffice. Nor was he surfeit when Prince Daeron named him Lord of Bitterbridge. White had a greater prize in mind: he desired no less a seat than Highgarden, declaring that the Tyrells had played no part in the Dance, and therefore should be attainted as traitors.

Ser Ulf’s ambitions must be accounted modest when compared to those of his fellow turncloak, Hugh Hammer. The son of a common blacksmith, Hammer was a huge man, with hands so strong that he was said to be able to twist steel bars into torcs. Though largely untrained in the art of war, his size and strength made him a fearsome foe. His weapon of choice was the warhammer, with which he delivered crushing, killing blows. In battle he rode Vermithor, once the mount of the Old King himself; of all the dragons in Westeros, only Vhagar was older or larger.

For all these reasons, Lord Hammer (as he now styled himself) began to dream of crowns. “Why be a lord when you can be a king?” he told the men who began to gather round him. And talk was heard in camp of a prophecy of ancient days that said, “When the hammer shall fall upon the dragon, a new king shall arise, and none shall stand before him.” Whence came these words remains a mystery (not from Hammer himself, who could neither read nor write), but within a few days every man at Tumbleton had heard them.

Green army didn't have choice in accepting the aid of Betrayers during the battle. Afterwards both of them proved disobedience and traitorous intentions to Greens when asking Reach and even the Crown.

Greens had to deal with problem which Black side rashly created by empowering them  with powerful dragons and assassination of them is actually one of rare redeeming qualities of Caltrops.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Part of the theme in the Hugh/Ulf story is that Targaryens are not worth much/anything if they born on the wrong side of the blanket or if they are the descendants of baseborn bastards ... because that's what they are. Insofar as the blood of the dragon is concerned Hugh and Ulf are as royal as the Targaryens - but nobody wanted to see or admit that.

Theme-wise this issue definitely should be addressed. I mean, it is the same with Nettles. She, too, should have been made a princess or at least some great lady, yet the only ones who get really something out of becoming dragonriders are the Hull boys who have established connections into the royal family via Corlys and Jacaerys Velaryon.

Regarding theme of bastardy, dragonseeds and Targaryen "exceptionalism" are certainly possible themes to be explored in show. 

Though comparing betrayers with other bastards in stories like Orys or Addam, it makes question more complex and character of each would determine in part their destiny.
 

Edited by Eltharion21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eltharion21 said:

Daeron isn't scum in sense that Daemon, Aemond or Rhaenyra or even Aegon II are , he is actually great material for three dimensional character unlike the betrayers, burning of Bitterbridge is his low-point and certainly a war crime since murder is done indiscriminately. 

Prince Daeron is not unlike Edward the Black Prince in this situation, and Edward was widely regarded a great and good prince and leader despite his repeated willingness to do terrible things to towns that defied him. And Daeron has the excuse of being young and deeply grieved at the brutal death at of his infant nephew at the hands of a mob of people in Bitterbridge.

So, I agree with you entirely. He's a brave youth who is thrown into a terrible conflict and does both good and bad things. There's plenty of meat on that bone for a story. 

I share your opinions about how to adapt the Dance to TV, by the way. The spirit of the story and its characters, the intent behind it, should be as maintained as is feasible. Changes are necessary to fit the medium, but a lot of the things being bandied about here feel more like wanting to rewrite the story to suit one's own interests rather than trying to find a way to make George's history work on the screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ran said:

Prince Daeron is not unlike Edward the Black Prince in this situation, and Edward was widely regarded a great and good prince and leader despite his repeated willingness to do terrible things to towns that defied him. And Daeron has the excuse of being young and deeply grieved at the brutal death at of his infant nephew at the hands of a mob of people in Bitterbridge.

Considering we only know the guy through the lense of a historian you presume to know to much about his motivations. But we can be reasonably sure that his actions and commands are relayed to us a lot better than his internal motivations (about which we essentially know nothing at all). And the way to judge people is not by what they felt when they were doing things - but by what they did. They can be extenuating circumstances ... but not when you round up thousands of innocent people and just kill them.

And it is not that Daeron didn't have time to cool down after the tragedy. The Green army isn't there when the deed happens. They are still leagues away and some time (days) before they arrive at the town to sack it.

I mean, Jaehaerys I was a pretty good king as he is presented - but we are supposed to read his cruel execution of the murderers of Rego Draz as him running amok with vengeance. We are not supposed to applaud this escalation of violence. He remained insofar the measured man he was that he only ripped out the entrails of the guilty parties but he really went very far there. Daeron and Ormund are in Tywin/Mad King territory there, unable/unwilling to care that kill a hundred innocents for perhaps one guilty fellow that escaped Lady Caswell. How can you put things like that into perspective?

Daeron and Lord Ormund have no excuse as at all. Aside from 'Well, something bad happened at this town, let's blame all of them for it.' That's collective punishment and wrong even in Westeros as far as I know it. I mean, sure, Aerys II killed all the Hollards and Darklyns, but not all folk of Duskendale, no? I'm sure Daeron didn't kill all folk of Bitterbridge, but they did the best they could.

48 minutes ago, Ran said:

So, I agree with you entirely. He's a brave youth who is thrown into a terrible conflict and does both good and bad things. There's plenty of meat on that bone for a story.

Sure, Daeron can be an interesting character ... but in the end the end there is not much good at what he does. He fights for the wrong side in the war, for starters, being dutiful and modest doesn't outweigh a brutal sack or conspiring to murder allies your side had previously corrupted.

There isn't anything heroic about this particular character ... the full story of Aemond made him more a three-dimensional character than Daeron ever was - just because we got that little tidbit about Maris Baratheon goading him. Daeron we never even get to know. Even that tidbit about him weeping when his father died is gone from FaB.

I mean, there isn't even any indication that Daeron was abhorred by what he did at Bitterbridge - if the story said he was shocked when he actually saw a town being sacked and then from there felt that what their men were doing at Tumbleton was wrong - but that's not in the story, is it?

Not to mention that Tumbleton later is basically a story of a medieval army out of control, of men devolving to a level of barbarism that was clearly not the case in this army while Lord Ormund was still alive. Meaning the Bitterbridge sack is likely to be imagined as being less cruel/extreme than the Tumbleton sack - which then could mean Daeron was quite happy with the first and only found the latter to be extreme.

[I'd prefer it if they care enough about this particular character to make him three-dimensional to have him realize the terrors of war at Bitterbridge, having him oppose the Tumbleton sack because of the bloodshed he himself commanded at Bitterbridge - but then, such development is not in George's material, is it?]

And this is not me bitching for no reason. I liked Daeron pretty much ... before FaB made him approve of and command the Sack of Bitterbridge.

48 minutes ago, Ran said:

I share your opinions about how to adapt the Dance to TV, by the way. The spirit of the story and its characters, the intent behind it, should be as maintained as is feasible. Changes are necessary to fit the medium, but a lot of the things being bandied about here feel more like wanting to rewrite the story to suit one's own interests rather than trying to find a way to make George's history work on the screen. 

I seem to be lacking imagination in that department. But what I can say is that I think it pretty clear that crucial aspects of George's vision are not that we take Gyldayn's condemnation of the Two Betrayers as sacrosanct truth. They are explicitly described as characters who did not express themselves or put their motivations to writing. And from what get there from the likes of Daeron's highborn cronies none of the Caltrops (especially not Peake or Roxton) come across as noble or sympathetic characters. I mean, the uncut version of events there is essentially a cautionary tell how treason begets ever more treason - they took Tumbleton by treason and betrayal and afterwards they can only see betrayal and treason in themselves.

One certainly could make these two the worst villains of the story - but one could certainly also make them more nuanced, being mistreated by Rhaenyra, being looked down upon by the royal family and the courtiers for their bearing and their manners, them realizing that they are essentially be exploited and risking their lives in battle without proper compensation considering what they bring to the table (two of the largest dragons still around). I mean, the obvious discrepancy there in the story is that there is simply no justification why the Targaryens should have everything and the other dragonriders essentially nothing. That the fact that lowborn scum can ride dragons, too, creates tension and sort blurs the line between the highborn royal dragonriders (whose specialness is, to no small part, the fact that they can ride those beasts) and the average man who also can become a dragonrider, after all.

And it seems clear to me that George's message there is supposed to be that Hugh and Ulf wouldn't have betrayed Rhaenyra had they been treated better - i.e. been adapted into the royal family or at least been raised far higher than they were - just as we see how people 'born to the purple' look down on those who presume to (unjustly) claim it when the gang bands together to murder those scum dragonriders - when nobody apparently thinks of doing something that to Aemond when he runs amok and murders all the Strongs.

Not to mention the whole plot about the suspicions of Rhaenyra and her court - we are not supposed to agree with them that baseborn dragonriders and bastards are less trustworthy than nobility and royalty. There is a message there that they all want to rid themselves of the dragonseeds and nobody ever suspects the dragonriders in their own immediate family of treason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

I agree. Daeron's disgust at the sack of Tumbleton, Unwin Peake, and the Two Betrayers would make more sense and be much more cathartic if it was part of an arc wherein he actually learned something from what happened at Bitterbridge, either through him directly participating or merely observing and being sickened by what he did/saw since up until that point Daeron hadn't experienced just how nasty war can truly be.

Also, the same can be said of Jon Roxton. He was cool...until F & B revealed him to be an out-and-out rapist.

Edited by The Grey Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

I agree. Daeron's disgust at the sack of Tumbleton, Unwin Peake, and the Two Betrayers would make more sense and be much more cathartic if it was part of an arc wherein he actually learned something from what happened at Bitterbridge, either through him directly participating or merely observing and being sickened by what he did/saw since up until that point Daeron hadn't experienced just how nasty war can truly be.

Yeah, that would be my point. Also, I think I already tossed out the idea that it would be great - assuming we get the reign of Viserys I in detail - if Jace and Daeron and/or Helaena were actually pretty close, something that then sorts of starts to erode with Luke's murder and Blood and Cheese. They could continue to exchange letters during the war or even have some clandestine meeting at the very beginning (dragons do allow you to move around like Littlefinger in the show...).

But thematically that Hightower army thing clearly seems to be a mirror image of the Brotherhood Without Banners plot - a group of people who start with a noble cause doing their king's work, etc. only to slowly descend to the very low place they are in after Second Tumbleton/in AFfC when Thoros in his rags reflects what they have become.

For things like that you really need time. If one would want to show such a theme one would need really to spend a lot of time with that army, showing them first great knights following chivalric ideals (even in their original clashes with the Black Reach lords), perhaps with them winning over rather than forcing many of the other lords to their side only to have things gradually getting worse.

But as I tried to say above - such an arc or journey on the level of individual characters is not there in FaB (and only in part due to the concept of the book - Queen Rhaena has a well-written and carefully laid out tragic arc). We can speculate or imagine that Daeron did develop in some way - but there is no text confirming that he did.

20 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Also, the same can be said of Jon Roxton. He was cool...until F & B revealed him to be an out-and-out rapist.

I always find his murder of Hugh not particularly praiseworthy - certainly not as ugly as the poisoning of Ulf (although the Hightower fellow there sort of is courageous, too) - but he clearly has essentially no redeeming qualities left in the uncut version. Just as Peake doesn't have, either. I mean, this petty murdering of an ally at the council table is just disgusting.

And from the point of adapting this thing I really very much doubt that characters should feature in this thing if they only show up for one scene without having any story whatsoever. That's the problem I have with a portrayal of the main houses (they rarely show up). Any character getting considerable screen time should get their own story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2019 at 11:11 AM, Mystical said:

Gender rarely has anything to do with being a good writer. Even women can write dreadful female characters or scripts. GoT episode 2x04 was written by a woman. That was the episode with Sansa being stripped and beaten in court and the lovely, never ending scene where Joffrey commanded Ros to beat the other sex worker. So we had a female writer and she wrote....that.

While I agree that for certain issues a female perspective can be good and should be made use of, it doesn't automatically mean good scripts, the right handling of sensitive issues from a female perspective or even a female character that's written well.

But that episode was faithful to the source material though...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jabar of House Titan said:

But that episode was faithful to the source material though...

How? Ros is not even a book character and I don't remember this scene from the books. We didn't need that scene with her and the other prostitute, we already knew Joffrey was a monster. The Sansa scene was enough to showcase that. Heck every Joffrey scene was enough. It was useless scene about violence against women, the sexist crap this show is known for (pointless nudity of and violence against women). And this useless scene came in an episode written by a woman. That was my point. Just because you have a female writer doesn't guarantee good writing for or of female characters.

Edited by Mystical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mystical said:

How? Ros is not even a book character. We didn't need that scene with her and the other prostitute, we already knew Joffrey was a monster. The Sansa scene was enough to showcase that. Heck every Joffrey scene was enough. It was useless scene about violence against women, the sexist crap this show is known for (pointless nudity of and violence against women). And this useless scene came in an episode written by a woman. That was my point. Just because you have a female writer doesn't guarantee good writing for or of female characters.

Okay I see your point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....well Unwin Peake, but Daeron?

Quote

Prince Daeron is not unlike Edward the Black Prince in this situation, and Edward was widely regarded a great and good prince and leader despite his repeated willingness to do terrible things to towns that defied him. And Daeron has the excuse of being young and deeply grieved at the brutal death at of his infant nephew at the hands of a mob of people in Bitterbridge.

Yeah

Quote

Changes are necessary to fit the medium, but a lot of the things being bandied about here feel more like wanting to rewrite the story to suit one's own interests rather than trying to finda way to make George's history work on the screen.

Hey I’m not bandying that they should race swap any established characters, I disagree with that.

What I am bandying is “it would be relatively easy to emphasize more of the diversity of book-Westeros by showing Foreign Mercenaries prominently”.

You know, like expand that Trombo guy from Myr into a Bronn-like aide-de-camp for the Stark/Tully army.

 

Quote

Daeron we never even get to know. Even that tidbit about him weeping when his father died is gone from FaB.

Why was that cut from FaB?

Edited by The Dragon Demands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

....well Unwin Peake, but Daeron?

Yeah

I don't think Daeron and the Black Prince have anything in common, by the way. The latter actually was the heir to the English throne throughout his life and a capable commander and brutal sacker of cities - Daeron the Daring was none of that. He is described as a nice and amiable fellow, accustomed to follow orders rather than giving them which made him both bad kingly and bad general material.

Ormund Hightower wouldn't have suffered the savageries at Tumbleton - Daeron and his goons didn't have the strength to stop them.

47 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Hey I’m not bandying that they should race swap any established characters, I disagree with that.

Well, if one takes a step back and relaxes and remembers that, in the end, fiction is all fiction and actors are actors then it is actually completely irrelevant who plays who in a story that never happened this way. I mean, there was a time when people knew this, when men could play women and women could play men in theater.

I mean, in the end it is pretty silly how people in our days complain about

47 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Why was that cut from FaB?

It was replaced with a line about him being at Oldtown when his father died - which certainly was a good thing to do. But he could have still wept when he heard about the death of his father in Oldtown. That was a human element to his character.

Daeron the Daring is, perhaps, the least developed of Alicent's sons despite the fact that he does feature pretty prominently - and whatever positive qualities he may have had are now clearly overshadowed by the Sack of Bitterbridge he commanded, his inability to stop the savageries at Tumbleton and him authorizing the murders of the Two Betrayers - which is just an ugly thing to do.

One can want this boy to be a good guy but his actions speak much louder than his words if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It was replaced with a line about him being at Oldtown when his father died - which certainly was a good thing to do. But he could have still wept when he heard about the death of his father in Oldtown. That was a human element to his character.

Daeron the Daring is, perhaps, the least developed of Alicent's sons despite the fact that he does feature pretty prominently - and whatever positive qualities he may have had are now clearly overshadowed by the Sack of Bitterbridge he commanded, his inability to stop the savageries at Tumbleton and him authorizing the murders of the Two Betrayers - which is just an ugly thing to do.

One can want this boy to be a good guy but his actions speak much louder than his words if you ask me.

That struck me too while reading Fire and Blood. The narration keeps saying Daeron is the most noble of the Hightower princes and that he's a good boy but he doesn't really act like it. He's modest and seems a bit soft but as far as morality is concerned we know he has some involvement in at least two sackings and he gave his seal of approval to an assassination. Daeron really is the most noble of Alicent's children but considering Aegon II and Aemond are expies of Joffrey that doesn't exactly mean much. 

But out of all the characters I am really curious how a Targaryan show would portray Daeron. Its possible his role ends up getting scrapped altogether to streamline the cast. I recall Daeron being completely absent in a lore video that Game of Thrones did about the Dance of Dragons. If Daeron does make it in then its likely he'll be aged up. Like Jon and Robb he'll likely be turned from 15-16 to somewhere in his early twenties. Its old enough to make impressive feats of arms believable while still young enough to be described as a ''boy'' by the older characters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

That struck me too while reading Fire and Blood. The narration keeps saying Daeron is the most noble of the Hightower princes and that he's a good boy but he doesn't really act like it. He's modest and seems a bit soft but as far as morality is concerned we know he has some involvement in at least two sackings and he gave his seal of approval to an assassination. Daeron really is the most noble of Alicent's children but considering Aegon II and Aemond are expies of Joffrey that doesn't exactly mean much. 

Yeah. I mean, there would have been ways to show he was still somewhat noble at Tumbleton - and in a sense it is there with him being sad/horrified/disgusted by the savageries there. But that isn't really all that much considering he himself had commanded another sack(and there is no indication he was sad about that one).

Instead of his ridiculous death scene the guy could have gone done like Addam Velaryon, say, saving innocents from the attacks of a dragon running amok. That could have been something.

31 minutes ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

But out of all the characters I am really curious how a Targaryan show would portray Daeron. Its possible his role ends up getting scrapped altogether to streamline the cast. I recall Daeron being completely absent in a lore video that Game of Thrones did about the Dance of Dragons. If Daeron does make it in then its likely he'll be aged up. Like Jon and Robb he'll likely be turned from 15-16 to somewhere in his early twenties. Its old enough to make impressive feats of arms believable while still young enough to be described as a ''boy'' by the older characters. 

One should forget those features there. They were pretty inaccurate and should not bind the guys making the new show in any way - just as they should not feel obliged to care about 'the canon' established by GoT.

In a series called 'House of the Dragon' I'd find it odd if they were to cut any Targaryens. The focus should be on those people, with outside characters being combined or cut when it is necessary.

As I think I laid out above somewhere one could make a pretty compelling story about 'the Daeron plot' if they took their time following the march of the Hightower army.

And one also has to keep in mind that the Dance as such does also kill quite a few people, meaning that other characters can come into focus when the likes of Otto, Cole, Rhaenys, Luke, Jace, etc. are gone.

I've not done any counting for the Dance, but people keeping track of main GoT cast through the peak of speaking roles, etc. could easily enough compare how many speaking roles we could have for the Dance without things being too confusing.

Overall, there are very few fixed locations in a Dance series - we would have Dragonstone, KL, Harrenhal and the Riverlands, the Hightower army and eventually Tumbleton, and then some visits to Maidenpool, the Crownlands, Driftmark, and some other places.

Compared with GoT this is pretty minor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daemon of the Blacks said:

That struck me too while reading Fire and Blood. The narration keeps saying Daeron is the most noble of the Hightower princes and that he's a good boy but he doesn't really act like it. He's modest and seems a bit soft but as far as morality is concerned we know he has some involvement in at least two sackings and he gave his seal of approval to an assassination. Daeron really is the most noble of Alicent's children but considering Aegon II and Aemond are expies of Joffrey that doesn't exactly mean much. 

That is really rich coming from guy pretending to be Daemon Targaryen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about Second Tumbleton. Daeron deserved better. Also, the Blacks losing less than one hundred men is BS when you factor in two feral dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I agree about Second Tumbleton. Daeron deserved better. Also, the Blacks losing less than one hundred men is BS when you factor in two feral dragons.

Not really, when you consider the state the Greens were in (they were no longer an army, they were drunken thugs sitting around in the ruin and outside of a town, with no order and discipline whatsoever). If you get surprised in the night and there is no leader to follow, no clear plan to go through with, they just ran inside the town and closed the gates. This wasn't much of a battle. And Vermithor killed indiscrimately, he killed both Blacks and Greens. Neither Tessarion nor Silverwing ever attacked any Blacks during the fighting.

You really seem to have a wrong impression how many people actually were killed in medieval battles, especially when one side had the advantage of surprise. Most of the 1,000 Green dead at Second Tumbleton likely died in their beds because Seasmoke burned their tents in their sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Grey Wolf said:

@Lord Varys

I meant less than a hundred Blacks dying with Vermithor running amok is BS.

I hear you, but he didn't have the chance to burn many people, and he only started after the fools actually attacked him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Eltharion21 said:

That is really rich coming from guy pretending to be Daemon Targaryen.

Uuuum.....like, I get it. I have the username but I don't recall ever roleplaying AS Daemon.  

Daemon and Daeron are also a little different.  Daemon is a very villainous character and is often openly vile and malicious. Neither the narrative nor Daemon pretend he's a good guy. 

But Daeron its the plot and the boy's general reputation both signaling him to be very noble and his actions saying different. Daemon acts exactly like his poor reputation says he should and that's why I like him. Daeron acts opposite to his noble reputation and that's why I think he's a little weirdly written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×