Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Westeros

House of the Dragon Series Order Announced

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, to be sure, they fucked all the houses. A history of the Starks would look equally pointless now, not to mention a history of the Tyrells, Martells, Lannisters, Arryns, or Baratheons. Even the Greyjoys suck.

The difference between real history and fake history is that the Caesars actually existed. Historical drama is, I think, more fun if there is actual history to it. And that's lacking with George's dynasties.

The fact that those houses seemed to have a future is certainly a major point what made them interesting. But a family history is just depressing if you know that they are not going to get anywhere.

Well yes.  The Starks will die out with the current generation;  the Tyrells and Martells are gone;  the Lannisters will die with Tyrion, and the Baratheons are down to Gendry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

Cool, I can't wait to see more delusional notions of supremacy, lust for power, hubris, madness, and tragedy for Westeros' most disasterous House. Excited to watch a family that we know eventually fails to live up to their own hype and to watch audiences fall for tyrannical propaganda all over again because they like pretty white people.

The mods deleted my rebuke to your racially-charged comment, so I'll put it a bit more diplomatically. Why mention "pretty white people"? Why bring race into this? Are you implying HBO wants to brainwash audiences into liking tyrannical white people? Also, if people are willing to endure low-quality and "tyrannical propaganda" content because they like white people so much (disgusting statement by you by the way), why are movies like Black Panther, Blade, American Gangster etc so successful?

Edited by Panos Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

_All_ families will eventually come to an end, at some point. Doesn't really make me concerned about learning their stories.


I really think there are very few people who watch something like Rome and think too much about how much better it is just because it's based on real history. Half of them probably only had the vaguest sense of what was real history and what was fake in that show, to be honest. If the story is good, if the drama is good, most people will enjoy it. If it's not, they won't. 

One of my most anticipated movie of the next year is All the Saints of Newark, a prequel to The Sopranos, even though I know that Dickie Moltisanti (and his only son Christopher), Tony Soprano, and most of the other fictional mobsters and crime families in that film will ultimately die between the start of that film and the end of the TV series. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Are you implying HBO wants to brainwash audiences into liking tyrannical white people?

No, I'm saying HBO fooled people into rooting for tyrannical white saviors. It's says more about a faction of the audience than HBO. Certainly some people thought that Targaryens were the main heroes (also in-story, what they think of themselves). Faux white saviors is a trope that can be used.

It was also a dig at diversity. More white actors in bad Rhaegar wigs will be cast in starring roles for this prequel. Whatever HBO does with this HotD mess, people of color will be cast as side characters at best. Again. Bloodmoon sounded pretty bad, but at least they could diversify the cast. Targaryens are pretty fixed.

HBO would be smart to portray them like the Lannisters on steroids. I'm imagining a bunch of scenes where the pompousness and excess is highly entertaining, like Joffrey's wedding, and we can't wait until they get their comeuppance. Let's hope they don't fuck up Dorne this time since it could be their only chance for diversity. Audiences love an underdog so it will be interesting to see a story in which the Targaryens... aren't one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

No, I'm saying HBO fooled people into rooting for tyrannical white saviors. It's says more about a faction of the audience than HBO. Certainly some people thought that Targaryens were the main heroes (also in-story, what they think of themselves). Faux white saviors is a trope that can be used.

It was also a dig at diversity. More white actors in bad Rhaegar wigs will be cast in starring roles for this prequel. Whatever HBO does with this HotD mess, people of color will be cast as side characters at best. Again. Bloodmoon sounded pretty bad, but at least they could diversify the cast. Targaryens are pretty fixed.

HBO would be smart to portray them like the Lannisters on steroids. I'm imagining a bunch of scenes where the pompousness and excess is highly entertaining, like Joffrey's wedding, and we can't wait until they get their comeuppance. Let's hope they don't fuck up Dorne this time since it could be their only chance for diversity. Audiences love an underdog so it will be interesting to see a story in which the Targaryens... aren't one. 

The Great Houses of Westeros are pretty indistinguishable, morally.  This isn't Harry Potter, where everyone bad belongs to one House.  Nor does White saviourism have any relevance to the story.  No one here is King Leopold of the Belgians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

No, I'm saying HBO fooled people into rooting for tyrannical white saviors. It's says more about a faction of the audience than HBO. Certainly some people thought that Targaryens were the main heroes (also in-story, what they think of themselves). Faux white saviors is a trope that can be used.

It was also a dig at diversity. More white actors in bad Rhaegar wigs will be cast in starring roles for this prequel. Whatever HBO does with this HotD mess, people of color will be cast as side characters at best. Again. Bloodmoon sounded pretty bad, but at least they could diversify the cast. Targaryens are pretty fixed.

HBO would be smart to portray them like the Lannisters on steroids. I'm imagining a bunch of scenes where the pompousness and excess is highly entertaining, like Joffrey's wedding, and we can't wait until they get their comeuppance. Let's hope they don't fuck up Dorne this time since it could be their only chance for diversity. Audiences love an underdog so it will be interesting to see a story in which the Targaryens... aren't one. 

Why does HBO, a TV network based in the US, a majority white country, have a moral obligation to cast non-white characters for a spinoff of a show whose audience primarily came from said white-majority country, belonging to a genre which is primarily read and watched by white males, written by a white author, set in a fictional realm repeatedly stated by the author as being based on Europe, a majority white continent, and based on a historical period where non-European/white immigration into said continent was practically non-existent? What gives you the right to make such demands, and treat the lack of their fulfillment with such contempt?

Edited by Panos Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Great Houses of Westeros are pretty indistinguishable, morally.  This isn't Harry Potter, where everyone bad belongs to one House.  Nor does White saviourism have any relevance to the story.  No one here is King Leopold of the Belgians.

This isn't an anthropology class, where every House is is morally relative. 

I'm sure the new series will reflect what GRRM has said about villains in his universe. Some of them have good qualities. But they're still villains. 

White saviorism is lurking the background of the story the Targaryens tell about themselves. It's a story about people with eugenists thinking who believe they're better than other humans (not houses--humans) and who oppress people. Targaryen supremacy isn't that much of a stretch to white supremacy in our world. Obviously it's not an exact allegory, but the subtleties are there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ran said:

_All_ families will eventually come to an end, at some point. Doesn't really make me concerned about learning their stories.

That is a question of taste, I guess. I'm not sure I'd bother telling the history of House Targaryen if they were essentially a failure as a family. Even if they actually end up contributing to the defeat of the Others in the ASoIaF book series in an actual meaningful way, those would then be the achievements and deeds of those individuals - we don't need their family history as a background, just as don't need (and never will get) the histories of all the Arryns, Starks, Lannisters, etc.

And one has to wonder whether a broader audience will be interested in another succession war involving Dany's distant grandmother setting herself up as another Mad Queen. People have already seen this.

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I really think there are very few people who watch something like Rome and think too much about how much better it is just because it's based on real history. Half of them probably only had the vaguest sense of what was real history and what was fake in that show, to be honest. If the story is good, if the drama is good, most people will enjoy it. If it's not, they won't.

The people who have watched Rome or The Tudors or I, Claudius know that Caesar and Henry VIII and Caligula existed. They might not know all the details, but they know the stuff is based on historical characters and events.

The problem with FaB is that it doesn't contain much detailed drama. It is a history book, not a novel. Making this thing good drama would depend completely on the writers. They would have to come up with believable characters, good lines and motivations, etc. - all things which HBO sucked at the last time they adapted Martin material which only existed in the form of planned outlines.

And I'm not sure whether the Dance of the Dragons as it stands can be great drama if the writers stick to George's outline of the war as given by FaB. That works pretty fine as a history book, but as a series of novels it would be very anticlimactic.

I'm not sure if I want to watch a show which is faithful to FaB but not particularly entertaining nor a show which is entertaining yet has very little to do with the source material. And I'm very aware that this is my subjective problem ;-).

2 hours ago, Ran said:

One of my most anticipated movie of the next year is All the Saints of Newark, a prequel to The Sopranos, even though I know that Dickie Moltisanti (and his only son Christopher), Tony Soprano, and most of the other fictional mobsters and crime families in that film will ultimately die between the start of that film and the end of the TV series.

Never watched the Sopranos, so I cannot really comment on that. However, I assume this prequel will be more connected to events and characters in the TV show than the Conquest of the Dance of the Dragons is to ASoIaF. Because we need neither to understand the other. It is just background information. There is no overlap of the Dance story or characters with those of ASoIaF.

Share this post


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

Well, to be sure, they fucked all the houses. A history of the Starks would look equally pointless now, not to mention a history of the Tyrells, Martells, Lannisters, Arryns, or Baratheons. Even the Greyjoys suck.

What do you mean even the Greyjoys suck?  :P

2 hours ago, Ran said:

_All_ families will eventually come to an end, at some point. Doesn't really make me concerned about learning their stories.


I really think there are very few people who watch something like Rome and think too much about how much better it is just because it's based on real history. Half of them probably only had the vaguest sense of what was real history and what was fake in that show, to be honest. If the story is good, if the drama is good, most people will enjoy it. If it's not, they won't. 

First, took the words right out of my mouth about all lines eventually ending - I don't get that complaint.  It'd be like saying a prospective Godfather prequel series would be sapped because we know Michael eventually dies alone (well, there was that dog that presumably starts eating him as the credits role).

And also agreed on the lack of real difference between historical fiction and just fiction.  Reminded me of this - even before you mentioned the Sopranos movie:

 

Anyway, this obviously is the safer choice by HBO than the Long Night show, but as others have said I'm pretty disappointed we're not gonna get Naomi Watts in Martin world.  Was looking forward to that.  I also agree with other that I hope they start with the Conquest or better yet the aftermath of the doom.  The first episode being them landing on Dragonstone sounds ideal to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

This isn't an anthropology class, where every House is is morally relative. 

I'm sure the new series will reflect what GRRM has said about villains in his universe. Some of them have good qualities. But they're still villains. 

White saviorism is lurking the background of the story the Targaryens tell about themselves. It's a story about people with eugenists thinking who believe they're better than other humans (not houses--humans) and who oppress people. Targaryen supremacy isn't that much of a stretch to white supremacy in our world. Obviously it's not an exact allegory, but the subtleties are there. 

No.  Every Lord/Lady and King/Queen believes that their surname gives them the right to rule, whether they're called Targaryen, Stark, Lannister, Tyrell etc.  That's just how highborn people think, in a medieval society.

There are good, bad, indifferent people within Houses.  But, no good and bad Houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Reminded me of this - even before you mentioned the Sopranos movie:

"He was gay, Gary Cooper?" Oh, Chrissie. :rofl:

The Sopranos had such a rich vein of humor in it. Nothing will ever beat the "interior decorator" in "Pine Barrens", though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

No.  Every Lord/Lady and King/Queen believes that their surname gives them the right to rule, whether they're called Targaryen, Stark, Lannister, Tyrell etc.  That's just how highborn people think, in a medieval society.

There are good, bad, indifferent people within Houses.  But, no good and bad Houses.

I disagree. Looking at how the houses shake out with the endgame, the Targaryens are portrayed as the dark anti-hero/villain house. Do Starks think they're better than all other humans combined? Do they think they can't get sick because of their magical blood? Do they think they're the most extraordinary of all humans and deserve exceptional status as rulers of all 7 kingdoms, perhaps even the world? The better Targaryens are ones who didn't even want anything to do with the name. Aemon didn't even want to use his surname, Jon would rather kill Dany than be a Targaryen. And sure, Aegon I and Daenerys are different because the former didn't want to take over multiple continents - gosh, what a humble guy. Targaryens are given special traits alright - and it's their amazing brand of delusional thinking that persists across generations, from Aegon to Daenerys. Their house is Ozymandias personified. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

I disagree. Looking at how the houses shake out with the endgame, the Targaryens are portrayed as the dark anti-hero/villain house. Do Starks think they're better than all other humans combined? Do they think they can't get sick because of their magical blood? Do they think they're the most extraordinary of all humans and deserve exceptional status as rulers of all 7 kingdoms, perhaps even the world? The better Targaryens are ones who didn't even want anything to do with the name. Aemon didn't even want to use his surname, Jon would rather kill Dany than be a Targaryen. And sure, Aegon I and Daenerys are different because the former didn't want to take over multiple continents - gosh, what a humble guy. Targaryens are given special traits alright - and it's their amazing brand of delusional thinking that persists across generations, from Aegon to Daenerys. Their house is Ozymandias personified. 

Please point out to me when the Starks ever stood for election in the North.  They won the North through Fire and Blood.  They destroyed all rival Northern Kings. They will not tolerate any lesser House disputing their right to rule half a continent.

Trying to argue that people are bad because they are born into One House or another is pure prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Please point out to me when the Starks ever stood for election in the North.  They won the North through Fire and Blood.  They destroyed all rival Northern Kings. They will not tolerate any lesser House disputing their right to rule half a continent.

Trying to argue that people are bad because they are born into One House or another is pure prejudice.

The difference is that the Starks changed. The Targaryens did not. Please point me to where modern-day Starks continued to act like their ancient ancestors over 8,000 years of rule. Daenerys ends up basically the same mass murderer her ancestors were. Is any Stark doing the same? Not really. It really does seem like the story is rigged in favor of the author's favorite house. 

The big fish eat the little fish...and House Targ attempted to outrank them all. No wonder they failed and the Starks survived. I'll definitely enjoy the prequels now, knowing that we're watching the downfall of a dead house (as if F&B wasn't clear about that already). 

They have the equivalent of fighter jets and they are ruling over a barely literate society. ONLY house Targaryen has absolute power, and they are the ONLY ones that wanted to preserve this power through incest. The average noble family and morally the same - puh. No one buys that except for Targ suckers.

Edited by Rose of Red Lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rose of Red Lake said:

The difference is that the Starks changed. The Targaryens did not. Please point me to where modern-day Starks continued to act like their ancient ancestors over 8,000 years of rule. Daenerys ends up basically the same mass murderer her ancestors were. Is any Stark doing the same? Not really. It really does seem like the story is rigged in favor of the author's favorite house. 

The big fish eat the little fish...and House Targ attempted to outrank them all. No wonder they failed and the Starks survived. I'll definitely enjoy the prequels now, knowing that we're watching the downfall of a dead house (as if F&B wasn't clear about that already). 

They have the equivalent of fighter jets and they are ruling over a barely literate society. ONLY house Targaryen has absolute power, and they are the ONLY ones that wanted to preserve this power through incest. The average noble family and morally the same - puh. No one buys that except for Targ suckers.

I'm sure Riverlands and Westerlands peasants just loved being strung up by Robb Stark's soldiers, as he carved out his kingdom.  Pretty Pia rejoiced as she was raped.   The Frey family sang for joy as they were cannibalised.

They changed?  My arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin just gave his first blog post on the prequel situation.  Not much new info...but he seems to confirm that it's specifically about the Dance of the Dragons:
 

Quote

HOUSE OF THE DRAGON has been in development for several years (though the title has changed a couple of times during that process).  It was actually the first concept I pitched to HBO when we started talking about a successor show, way back in the summer of 2016.  If you’d like to know a bit more of what the show will be about… well, I can’t actually spill those beans, but you might want to pick up a copy of two anthologies I did with Gardner Dozois, DANGEROUS WOMEN and ROGUES, and then move on to Archmaester Gyldayn’s history, FIRE & BLOOD.

 

He cites "the Princess and the Queen" and "the Rogue Prince"...but NOT Sons of the Dragon.

So it's not an anthology going in chronological order.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, last November when Fire & Blood came out he let slip that "two prequels draw material from it" - that is, ALL of "Fire & Blood" wasn't one big prequel pitch.  And just looking at it, yeah, structurally, the two obvious candidates from it are the Conquest and the Dance.

Given his emphasis on the Rogue Prince, I think this simply means they consider it all one big story of the lives of the people in the Dance, so they might not start with Viserys I's death, but perhaps with his crowning, to show the growing rivalry between the two court factions around his daughter and second wife that led to the Dance.  The question of course is, will they drastically show all this in chronological order?  Or, depict earlier stuff in flashbacks? (start with Viserys I's death but have flashbacks to how we got to this present state of affairs).
 

but Martin choosing NOT to cite Sons of the Dragon seems to settle it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DMC said:

What do you mean even the Greyjoys suck?  :P

I meant that there are so many Greyjoy POVs in the books that it would really be difficult to eradicate that house if they took their time to marry and father some children. Instead they basically go the same way as the Starks.

2 hours ago, DMC said:

First, took the words right out of my mouth about all lines eventually ending - I don't get that complaint.  It'd be like saying a prospective Godfather prequel series would be sapped because we know Michael eventually dies alone (well, there was that dog that presumably starts eating him as the credits role).

Let's try another spin:

There are stories were back story sort of comes naturally - think of Star Wars. There is no question that the fall of Anakin Skywalker and the rise of the Empire is a story that people would like to see. It is a narrative blank spot in the setting.

In ASoIaF the only such blank spots that really are connected to the overall story are the Long Night and the original War for the Dawn and Robert's Rebellion. Those are things that are relevant for the people living through ASoIaF.

Anything else is basically dead history.

That doesn't mean it cannot make an interesting story in its own right, it just means it has essentially nothing to do with ASoIaF as such. Who wins the Dance of the Dragons has nothing to do with the characters who lived later - and whatever connection there due to the fact that Dany and Jon are also Targaryens is somewhat diminished by the fact that this family dies out and the last Targaryens around did (insofar as the TV universe is concerned) not contribute anything of note to the ice demons fight.

The other aspect is that the Dance is just another War of the Five Kings with fewer power blocs and less factionalism. It is a less complex story. It may have more dragons but it has less complexity and less story than ASoIaF.

But that doesn't mean it cannot also be good, of course.

In fact, I really would like to see a slow-building court drama stretching over years with a lot of build-up and tension before things explode.

34 minutes ago, The Dragon Demands said:

Martin just gave his first blog post on the prequel situation.  Not much new info...but he seems to confirm that it's specifically about the Dance of the Dragons:

 

He cites "the Princess and the Queen" and "the Rogue Prince"...but NOT Sons of the Dragon.

So it's not an anthology going in chronological order.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, last November when Fire & Blood came out he let slip that "two prequels draw material from it" - that is, ALL of "Fire & Blood" wasn't one big prequel pitch.  And just looking at it, yeah, structurally, the two obvious candidates from it are the Conquest and the Dance.

Given his emphasis on the Rogue Prince, I think this simply means they consider it all one big story of the lives of the people in the Dance, so they might not start with Viserys I's death, but perhaps with his crowning, to show the growing rivalry between the two court factions around his daughter and second wife that led to the Dance.  The question of course is, will they drastically show all this in chronological order?  Or, depict earlier stuff in flashbacks? (start with Viserys I's death but have flashbacks to how we got to this present state of affairs).
 

but Martin choosing NOT to cite Sons of the Dragon seems to settle it.

Insofar as we can read that as an indication that this might start with the first Great Council and then cover the reign of Viserys I I'm much more enthusiastic now.

The way to make this work is to make the audience get to know those people, get to know what they are about, learn how they slowly but surely start to loath and hate each other. That way this can become a tragedy if it is written and played right.

But without sufficient depth it could easily become a caricature of GoT insofar as motivations are concerned.

I think you could do it both with well-written flashbacks as well as in chronological order - although proper flashbacks would likely completely ruin the pacing of the war.

A first season could easily do that in a Rome-like fashion, skipping years/months between episodes. If they play out the Stepstones war - which could give good dragon action as well as buildup for the Dance - a first season could only go from the Great Council to Rhaenyra's first wedding, and the second season from there to the death of Viserys I.

In fact, Daemon's entire story - his apparent desire to become king which shaped so many of his decisions throughout most of his life - could be a very interesting story. The reign of Viserys I is actually a story of ever-changing allegiances with many people teaming up and having falling-outs in their desire to get ever closer to the throne. That can make for a rather interesting story.

Who the factions in the Dance of the Dragons will be in the end is by no means clear early on in the reign of Viserys I. In fact, that only becomes clear in 120 AC. Before that, other factions may have fought over the throne if there had been a succession war, with various crucial people being on different sides.

And preparing things for this long could also help building up the characters who play crucial roles in the Dance - both at court and throughout Westeros. They could give us Rhaenyra's progress through the Riverlands and the West where she meets all those suitors for her hand, Cregan Stark and his father could show long before 129 AC, Jeyne Arryn and the Vale could feature prominently, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I meant that there are so many Greyjoy POVs in the books that it would really be difficult to eradicate that house if they took their time to marry and father some children. Instead they basically go the same way as the Starks.

Yeah I was just being a smartass.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That doesn't mean it cannot make an interesting story in its own right, it just means it has essentially nothing to do with ASoIaF as such.

I mean, I take your point that having a more direct connection to ASOIAF could be beneficial for a prospective show, but I think the relationship between any show - or narrative's - quality and whether we know how it ends (i.e. the Targs die out) is pretty orthogonal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah I was just being a smartass.

I mean, I take your point that having a more direct connection to ASOIAF could be beneficial for a prospective show, but I think the relationship between any show - or narrative's - quality and whether we know how it ends (i.e. the Targs die out) is pretty orthogonal.

I don't know. If the first couple of episodes suck many people might decide to give it a pass in no small part due to how GoT ended.

If they take their time and make the characters and their motivations believable than it could be fun.

But as I laid out in the other thread on this Dance show the problem is that, unlike ASoIaF, the Dance of the Dragons doesn't really have (m)any main characters that are (particularly) sympathetic.

I'm not sure why one should root for either Rhaenyra or Aegon II, and the few sympathetic characters - who are essentially all on the Black side - don't have all that much to do.

And then there is the anticlimactic war - if they don't change the campaigns somewhat then the war starts really hot only to end with a whimper.

I mean, if you read the history of the Dance it appears to me as an outline for a non-novel. It really lacks an arc of suspense, a climax, etc. In that sense it works like history but would not really make a good series of novels.

I mean, we all do expect that the future novels of ASoIaF are going to raise the stakes and not lower them. In the Dance you have the big battles early on and in the middle of the war, with very few highlights in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...