Jump to content

Matt Smith, Olivia Cooke, Emma D’Arcy Cast in House of the Dragon


Westeros

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

To be honest, I also don't really like the fact that they didn't cast a natural blonde for Daenerys, or that they didn't use shades or CGI or other effects to get the eye colors right. The Witcher could give Yennefer of Vengerberg purple eyes and make Geralt into an albino.

But GoT couldn't really create proper Valyrians or even Lannisters (none of them had green eyes nor did Jaime and Cersei have proper golden hair) ... and with Shireen, not even Baratheons.

That definitely was a letdown. Far from the biggest, mind you, but an adaptation should also do their best to recreate the looks of various characters - especially if most of the descriptions in the source material focus on eye and hair color.

Its certainly nice when a character looks like how you pictured, but I wouldn't want that 'yes that's what they should look like' thought to come at the expense of:

1. The right actor playing them - Peter Dinklage, Charles Dance and Diana Rigg look significantly different than how their characters are described on the page but I wouldn't sacrifice their portrayals for anything.

2. Giving black GoT fans the joy of seeing a major player in their favourite fandom who looks like them (yes, GoT had Grey Worm and Missandei but neither of those characters were exactly given any great GoT moments).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are definitely taking liberties. Which is their right to do for whatever reason the please, but people who are concerned about adaptation choices and about translating the setting to the screen certainly have reason to state their views as well.

I think one of the issues with Corlys from a "political" perspective, for some, is that Deadline reiterated that Danny Sapani was first approached, and now Steve Touissant... which shows that the writers weren't seeking out just the best actor and casting a color-blind net, but specifically wanted a black actor for the role. So they've made some sort of decision about how to depict things.

And this raises the question if they are going to make the opposition to her sons by "Laenor" inheriting a matter of their being non-white rather than a matter of legitimacy. Which would be a major change! Until we see whether the Strongs are cast or not, it's hard to say. Criston Cole could take over Strong's role as the father of her first children, I suppose, as a way to cut down the number of characters... though even if you drop Harwin, it still seems to me like you'll want Larys Strong around as a schemer.

As to providing black characters for black fans, I mean, Criston Cole, a pretty significant character, could work pretty well as non-white. Addam and Alyn of Hull could have been of mixed race, too, without doing any real damage to the setting details. In theory the Strongs could (though it'd make the fiction of Laenor being the father of Rhaenyra's children a lot harder to swallow). The key with Cole and the Strongs is that their lines come to an end, so there's no real contradiction to the setting. It's the specific way the Velaryons are Valyrians and are closely tied to the Targaryens, intermarrying with them repeatedly and sharing their appearance, that people will take issue with.  That's it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lady_Qohor said:

Its certainly nice when a character looks like how you pictured, but I wouldn't want that 'yes that's what they should look like' thought to come at the expense of:

1. The right actor playing them - Peter Dinklage, Charles Dance and Diana Rigg look significantly different than how their characters are described on the page but I wouldn't sacrifice their portrayals for anything.

2. Giving black GoT fans the joy of seeing a major player in their favourite fandom who looks like them (yes, GoT had Grey Worm and Missandei but neither of those characters were exactly given any great GoT moments).

The acting is much more important than the looks, of course, but I still don't like it when people do not bother to get the looks right if that could be easily done.

Peter Dinklage could easily have been turned into an ugly dwarf who was later further disfigured by a horrible scar and the loss of his nose ... just as Brienne could have parts of her face, etc.

This is not really about playing one thing against another. And I'm definitely not against increasing diversity in the cast ... I just don't think that Corlys Velaryon is best candidate for that. Although, if they ended up giving him purple eyes and platinum blonde hair it would be fine with me. That is how he is supposed to look. The color of his skin isn't that crucial - but my idea so far is that him being black means he is not going to look particularly Valyrian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

And this raises the question if they are going to make the opposition to her sons by "Laenor" inheriting a matter of their being non-white rather than a matter of legitimacy. Which would be a major change! Until we see whether the Strongs are cast or not, it's hard to say. Criston Cole could take over Strong's role as the father of her first children, I suppose, as a way to cut down the number of characters... though even if you drop Harwin, it still seems to me like you'll want Larys Strong around as a schemer.

I'm pretty sure they are not going to let go of Larys. But they could easily cut Harwin and Lyonel ... in fact, they easily could Laenor and Laena Velaryon, too, and make all the boys and girls children of Rhaenyra and Daemon. That could also help to simplify things.

If you look at it, that 'bastard son' plot is just a variation of the Cersei plot in GoT. They might think that this kind of thing gets old.

If Laenor and Laena are around and they go with the bastard plot then the children, possibly, not being white is basically the same as them not looking like Laenor. It is irrelevant whether the characteristic in question is skin color or hair color, eye color, or noses.

But we actually should not bother much with 'the bastard plot'. This show is going to show us who is going to fuck Rhaenyra and who isn't. We will see who fathers the children ... or at least we will hear them talking about who did behind closed doors. We won't hear characters looking at the children and have them and the audience guess who is the true father. That was something for the historians in the history book ... but it isn't the way to depict this in the novels.

Else nobody would be sure who was the father of Cersei's children in ASoIaF - but they very much are in the books.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

As to providing black characters for black fans, I mean, Criston Cole, a pretty significant character, could work pretty well as non-white. Addam and Alyn of Hull could have been of mixed race, too, without doing any real damage to the setting details. In theory the Strongs could (though it'd make the fiction of Laenor being the father of Rhaenyra's children a lot harder to swallow). The key with Cole and the Strongs is that their lines come to an end, so there's no real contradiction to the setting. It's the specific way the Velaryons are Valyrians and are closely tied to the Targaryens, intermarrying with them repeatedly and sharing their appearance, that people will take issue with.  That's it.

Yes, Addam of Hull (or not necessarily Alyn, since he might still turn out to be a part of the Targaryen family tree) could easily have a mixed heritage, with Marilda being a woman of color.

And, yes, the Strongs could work as POC as well, especially Larys who never breeds - he could have a black mother, say, and turn out to be only Harwin's half-brother (we know Lord Lyonel had multiple wives).

But even more easier to diversity to the first season would be to just staff Viserys I's court with POC. They do that with Mysaria already - which is perfectly fine! - but there would also be ways to make some of the Grand Maesters POC, some Kingsguard (Criston Cole, as you suggested), Lyman Beesbury, other men on the council they could invent for the show. We don't know who was Master of Ships before Tyland Lannister.

And, of course, there is also the possibility to have certain members of the great houses be POC. Jeyne Arryn springs to mind immediately, considering she never has children. She could be black, as could be her first cousin who later challenges Joffrey Arryn.

Otto and Alicent Hightower also could have been black, if you wanted to go there. Their branch of the Hightower-Targaryens eventually dies out, too.

But with the Velaryons it just feels somewhat weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ran said:

They are definitely taking liberties. Which is their right to do for whatever reason the please, but people who are concerned about adaptation choices and about translating the setting to the screen certainly have reason to state their views as well.

I think one of the issues with Corlys from a "political" perspective, for some, is that Deadline reiterated that Danny Sapani was first approached, and now Steve Touissant... which shows that the writers weren't seeking out just the best actor and casting a color-blind net, but specifically wanted a black actor for the role. So they've made some sort of decision about how to depict things.

And this raises the question if they are going to make the opposition to her sons by "Laenor" inheriting a matter of their being non-white rather than a matter of legitimacy. Which would be a major change! Until we see whether the Strongs are cast or not, it's hard to say. Criston Cole could take over Strong's role as the father of her first children, I suppose, as a way to cut down the number of characters... though even if you drop Harwin, it still seems to me like you'll want Larys Strong around as a schemer.

As to providing black characters for black fans, I mean, Criston Cole, a pretty significant character, could work pretty well as non-white. Addam and Alyn of Hull could have been of mixed race, too, without doing any real damage to the setting details. In theory the Strongs could (though it'd make the fiction of Laenor being the father of Rhaenyra's children a lot harder to swallow). The key with Cole and the Strongs is that their lines come to an end, so there's no real contradiction to the setting. It's the specific way the Velaryons are Valyrians and are closely tied to the Targaryens, intermarrying with them repeatedly and sharing their appearance, that people will take issue with.  That's it. 

 

So do you view the illustrations done by Doug Wheatley has him having complete creative liberties. Did George have any final say in Fire & Blood artwork. Is the art illustration of Corlys’s death commission by George as how he envisioned it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

To be honest, I also don't really like the fact that they didn't cast a natural blonde for Daenerys, or that they didn't use shades or CGI or other effects to get the eye colors right. The Witcher could give Yennefer of Vengerberg purple eyes and make Geralt into an albino.

But GoT couldn't really create proper Valyrians or even Lannisters (none of them had green eyes nor did Jaime and Cersei have proper golden hair) ... and with Shireen, not even Baratheons.

That definitely was a letdown. Far from the biggest, mind you, but an adaptation should also do their best to recreate the looks of various characters - especially if most of the descriptions in the source material focus on eye and hair color.

By S8 Jamie was a brunette, and I don't know what to call Tyrion's hair after S7. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Otto and Alicent Hightower also could have been black, if you wanted to go there. Their branch of the Hightower-Targaryens eventually dies out, too.

But with the Velaryons it just feels somewhat weird.

Imaging the meltdown over black Hightowers made me laugh. But I get your point about the Velaryons. Isn't it easier to give Corlys a black mother and white/Valyrian father? Within 2-3 generations his descendants would be white passing anyway, and his paternal ancestors intermarriage with Targaryens isn't effected.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tha Shiznit said:

So do you view the illustrations done by Doug Wheatley has him having complete creative liberties. Did George have any final say in Fire & Blood artwork. Is the art illustration of Corlys’s death commission by George as how he envisioned it?

I mean, his depiction is of an aged white Corlys, because the  Valyrians are white.

But in terms of Wheatley's liberty, George doesn't like having a very heavy hand on artists, for the most part. There's a handful of historical characters and events where he has strong personal visions of how they should look in very minute detail (Aegon IV's mistresses, for example) but he gives a lot of leeway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ran said:

 

I'm willing to give them a chance to give an explanation. This is sort of on the level of race-swapping Salladhor Saan - a minor change but not implausible in the setting.

It still stuns me people let Benioff get away with so much even in Season 2, never "pressing" questions.  He ignored us, but people in "positions of authority" in the press would just let him tell lies or deflect questions....and never follow up on it.

Case in point, Season 2, when directly asked "why did you change Jeyne Westerling from the books" he'd gaslight us with "all we did was show what was happening off screen"....and even if you haven't read the books, the mere fact that they changed her name and origin, is what they're clearly asking about.  Benioff wasn't even "famous" yet in Season 2, when serious cracks were showing - signs of later problems.  I think they learned to "play nice" in Season 3 after all that early criticism because they didn't have infinite renewal yet.  

The point of this is I'm not so naive as to simply think "let's wait for them to explain themselves" - Benioff and Weiss never did that, the quisling Cogman never did that, these people were not "our friends", not "on our side", there was no transparency. We got duped.

This time we need to grill them on any change. Over a decade of gaslighting and lies didn't leave us naive anymore.

But I can respect a "thought out" change.  As opposed to Benioff, Weiss, and Cogman, who..."kinda forgot"...multiple major points every season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as "race-swapping" decisions go, I think this one can be adapted fittingly. I would imagine Rhaenyra's "strong" children are going to be quite obviously 100% white, while Laenor is clearly mixed. Story wise, is there any problem with this idea?

"Black Corlys" and the human heart in conflict with itself suggests some possible angles to look for. Will he feel slighted by the lords of Westeros when they bypass his wife and son at the Great Council? He will probably question how much of this decision was based on the color of his skin versus other political expediencies And again when Rhaenyra blatantly cuckolds Laenor, and her father silences any who say otherwise. A wealthy and successful Black Corlys might become the exception that proves the rule (of racism, in this case), too. Further, lots of potential for Green nastiness when he sides with Rhaenyra and the... rest of her faction. Puns aplenty, if they keep the black/green dichotomy.

Did they have to make Corlys black to do all of these things—No, not necessarily. But it's an extremely topical way to adapt the story without disrupting it in other irreparable ways, I think. That is without considering if they could have accomplished the same with even less "disruptive" changes.

Do I expect pandering Hollywood types to pull this off? Not exactly, no. We will see. Keep your fingers crossed and your dragons saddled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sotan said:

Imaging the meltdown over black Hightowers made me laugh. But I get your point about the Velaryons. Isn't it easier to give Corlys a black mother and white/Valyrian father? Within 2-3 generations his descendants would be white passing anyway, and his paternal ancestors intermarriage with Targaryens isn't effected.  

I guess people would also complain about black Hightowers ... but then, we don't even have a description for Otto and Alicent to this point. Whereas we do have a pretty detailed despription of Laenor and Laena and Addam and Alyn ... and we do know that they must have inherited their coloring from their (grand)father because Marilda apparently didn't look Valyrian and Princess Rhaenys inherited the black hair of her Baratheon mother.

Laenor's and Laena's Valyrian hair is a Velaryon trait their inherited from their father ... as were the purple eyes and silver hair of Addam and Alyn of Hull.

And we also have this rather dominant Valyrian beauty even in the cadet branch Velaryons who basically intermarried with petty lords. Aegon III's bride, Daenaera Velaryon, is a Harte on her mother's side and Corlys' great-great-niece, is described as having 'skin as smooth and pale as winter snow' in addition to having long silver hair laced with gold and eyes 'blue as a summer sea'.

All that makes a general mixed heritage for the Velaryons at this point somewhat problematic. Especially since it is not something that could be easily 'bred out of the bloodline' to assume there will be 'whiter Velaryons' in the later ages because a black Alyn Velaryon (son or grandson of Corlys) would be marrying his black cousin Baela Targaryen, daughter of the black Laena Velaryon and Daemon Targaryen. And presumably the later Velaryons are all descended from these two.

In relation to the books this should have ripple effects down to Monford and Monterys Velaryon, Aurane Waters, and even to very minor characters like our beloved Rennifer Longwaters - who is descended from Alyn Velaryon and Elaena Targaryen - who herself should also be somewhat black as a daughter of Daenaera Velaryon. And speaking of Elaena - this would also lead to somewhat black Plumms and Penroses.

And to be sure - we also don't know if any Targaryen cousins on the Baela/Rhaena side of the family - grandchildren of Alyn and Baela or Rhaena and Garmund Hightower - didn't marry back into the royal branch during the reign of Daeron II. Some or all of the brides of the sons of Daeron II could be descendants of Baela and Rhaena (and that's confirmed effectively for Aelinor Penrose, the wife of Aerys I).

In that sense for the issue is that this messes around with how this family is described in general.

Now, I guess if they not go with Corlys being a selfmade man kind of guy then his father or grandfather might have just married a black woman - say, a Summer Islander princess or something along that sort. And that certainly would work since we have no clue who his mother or grandmother was. But it still affects how his children and grandchildren and other Velaryons would look like. If Corlys' mother or grandmother was black, then his brothers and nephews (among them Vaemond Velaryon, the grandfather of Daenaera) should be black, too.

3 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

As far as "race-swapping" decisions go, I think this one can be adapted fittingly. I would imagine Rhaenyra's "strong" children are going to be quite obviously 100% white, while Laenor is clearly mixed. Story wise, is there any problem with this idea?

"Black Corlys" and the human heart in conflict with itself suggests some possible angles to look for. Will he feel slighted by the lords of Westeros when they bypass his wife and son at the Great Council? He will probably question how much of this decision was based on the color of his skin versus other political expediencies And again when Rhaenyra blatantly cuckolds Laenor, and her father silences any who say otherwise. A wealthy and successful Black Corlys might become the exception that proves the rule (of racism, in this case), too. Further, lots of potential for Green nastiness when he sides with Rhaenyra and the... rest of her faction. Puns aplenty, if they keep the black/green dichotomy.

Did they have to make Corlys black to do all of these things—No, not necessarily. But it's an extremely topical way to adapt the story without disrupting it in other irreparable ways, I think. That is without considering if they could have accomplished the same with even less "disruptive" changes.

Do I expect pandering Hollywood types to pull this off? Not exactly, no. We will see. Keep your fingers crossed and your dragons saddled.

I actually do not hope they use this kind of thing to introduce modern concepts of racism into his world. Corlys Velaryon would not be looked down upon because of his skin color if he remained, as a character, who he is in the books - the richest and most famous man of the Seven Kingdoms, and a very fine match for Princess Rhaenys and an ideal prince/king consort for a future queen.

As long as medieval nobility marry among themselves there was really no issue with skin color. Those are modern concepts. And they actually have no place in Westeros among royalty and nobility.

In that sense, the looks of Corlys and Laenor should be no issue at the Great Council of 101 AC, nor when Jaehaerys I favors Baelon over Rhaenys in 92 AC.

FaB certainly gives us racism and xenophobia with the way the Rogares are treated by the Kingslanders, but they are people speaking a strange foreign languages, following strange foreign gods. If they were also portraying Corlys as such a person - as non-Westerosi by birth, not following the Seven, who doesn't speak the Common Tongue (or only with a heavy accent) then this might also hurt his popularity with the common people.

But the way the man is actually described in the books - as a very famous, very established guy, richer than the Lannisters and Hightowers, and founder of two towns which quickly grow large enough to rival KL itself in the trading department - he should be as established and popular as one possibly could.

The reason why he and his children are slighted by the Great Council is strictly the female line issue.

What might be is that Rhaenyra's sons might look as if they had two white parents ... but as I said multiple times already, we should not expect this show to not answer who the father of those children either by giving us juicy sex scenes or by having characters confirm one way or the other in direct conversation - like we did get in GoT/ASoIaF with the children of Cersei. Similarly, we are also going to learn what exactly was going on between Rhaenyra and Crison Cole, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me make clear how will all this look, altough reading FnB I was 100% supporting the Blacks:

-Even if it will not be shown that way, people watching the show will think Viserys was supported over Laenor because Corlys (and his descendants too) is black.

-The Blacks will be again favorised by people watching the show because Rhaenyra is a woman.

-Then the Blacks will be favorised by watchers because that part of the royalty also intermarried with black people, portraying the Greens even more racist.

-Then the entire Strong plotline will not work out (if there will be Strongs at all).

-Rhaenyra will might also be seen as racist, because he will oppose the marriage with Laenor.

-If the Strongs will be white (due to being bastards) but Addam and Alyn will have darker skincolor, it'll make the entire plot illogical, since the two bastards are supposed to be Corlys' secretly.

-The entire Green faction will be shown (intentionally or unintentionally) as racists, anti-Semitists, elitists and conservatives and pure evils on the level of a cartoon. And that will simply make the deaths of Helaena and her children not that disgusting after all. People will not feel sorry for them, nor for Daeron, because noone will like the Greens. Not on a level they should. Noone will like the Greens more than the Blacks. The entire plot is built up on both sides being equally good/bad for ruling. It's equality what is supposed to make this show exciting, and that's what they're ruining. They have to make people support the Greens too (or at least someone from them who can be a favourite of fans). But no such thing will happen unless the actual Dance happens. At that point (the beginning of the Dance), who will root for the Greens?

-It'll make the entire "Blood of Old-Valyria" pointless. Velaryons (and this might not sound that good) in the show are supposed to be just as elitists as he Targaryens (on the stage Valyrians were elitist back then), and Corlys being black and a self-made man totally ruins it.

-It ruins Daemon's character's too, who is supposed to be the real elitist of the story, being fond of his Valyrian blood and interested only (at least mostly) in valyrian women.

That's why I think this change shouldn't have been done. Unless it-s colorblind casting, and makes no difference between races, and giving a black man too silver hair and purple eyes. That would be fine by me, honestly, and I wouldn't mind if black or asian individuals would appear randomly in families, and their descendants wouldn't have to look like them.

The only problem that would apply on both situations is that the looks actually matter here. It matters, either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Daeron the Daring

I didn't think of that aspect of it, of how it makes the results of the Great Council of 101 seem, and what it makes the Black-Green conflict look like to viewers. Interesting thoughts. 

Once we know whether the Strongs are a thing or not, it'll be easier to guess how they're going with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

I didn't think of that aspect of it, of how it makes the results of the Great Council of 101 seem, and what it makes the Black-Green conflict look like to viewers. Interesting thoughts. 

That's my main issue with innacuracy. By the time the Blacks begin to fall and get into pretty dirty things, everyone will forgive them that, since the Greens will be the evil by that time.

 

6 minutes ago, Ran said:

Once we know whether the Strongs are a thing or not, it'll be easier to guess how they're going with it.

Yes, a lot depends on how they're going with the Strong plot. Sadly, a lot does not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there is no good reason to feel particularly sympathetic for Daeron the Daring considering the guy actually personally burned down an entire town full of refugees. That guy was nice before Bitterbridge ... but not thereafter. And his role in the Caltrops thing also makes nearly as bad as the likes of Unwin Peake.

As for the Dance being a war about two sides which are 'equally bad' ... that just isn't the case in the book. Most Blacks are much more decent people than the Greens, especially among the lords and knights declaring for the two sides.

Corlys and Rhaenys are great guys, as are all of Rhaenyra's sons and all of Daemon's daughters.

Daemon does have a cruel streak but if you compare him to his mirror image on the Green side, his nephew Aemond, he is cruel and competent, whereas Aemond is just cruel and stupid.

Rhaenyra certainly has flaws, but she is much more a tragic character surrounded by minsogynistic, biased, and incompetent advisors. Just think of Corlys advising her against a more feminist ruling in the Stokeworth/Rosby issue which later comes back to haunt her, Mysaria putting her against Nettles, and her entire council insisting she has to take preemptive measures against the bastard dragonriders.

Not to mention her being body-shamed by her own septon, and her being stuck with an ass for a consort who prefers the company of an evil woman about his own age and that of a bastard girl to her own.

She certainly makes some crucial mistakes some of which heavily contribute to her downfall ... but she isn't the villain of her own story.

Whereas, by comparison, the Greens are all either power-hungry schemers, people obsessed with revenge for real and imagined slights, etc.

The very few sympathetic Greens are folks like Daeron the Daring - who is no longer sympathetic or even remotely good after he personally burned down a town full of refugees, killing thousands in the process - who are just loyal to the guys in charge. But most of the Greens who actually shape their politics, who push Westeros into a war because they were behind/supportive of the original coup do not really come across as sympathetic at all.

But that all said - the way to deal with this war is to make it a tragedy. So Rhaenyra and Alicent have to be friends before they become enemies. And even their children shouldn't hate each other from the start.

This story will only work if you really understand why either side would not want the other to rule ... and for that they really cannot play up the 'women must not rule' angle as the main/only reason. They cannot go without that, of course, since that is an important issue.

But Otto and Alicent could easily be somewhat more sympathetic if their motivation was not so much an obsession with imagined 'Andal Law' but rather real personal issues with Rhaenyra and Daemon. Vice versa, while the audience should be in support of Viserys I's decision to make his daughter his heir it wouldn't hurt if Rhaenyra may not exactly be presented as an ideal future ruler.

Those people who cannot suffer a woman on the Iron Throne won't be presented as sympathetic, though. They would be very hard to swallow these days.

I don't see any way, though, to portray Aegon II and Aemond as sympathetic characters. They are pretty much scum in the book, so a faithful adaptation couldn't really ignore that.

One could, perhaps, make Aegon the Elder into a somewhat lazy, party-oriented glutton. But such an approach would only make him somewhat sympathetic because he would be the pawn of his mother and grandfather who then cannot really deal with the job profile of king, nor with the stress and responsibility that comes with running things in the middle of a war. It could make him somewhat human, but definitely not a hero.

And in the end he is a complete tragic pawn again, when his mommy pushes his buttons again, so his entire council decides they have to kill the cripple or continue a stupid war that could get them all killed.

In the end, the point which is going to decide whether this show will work or not is if they can sell the Dance of the Dragons as a conflict that people do care about. And for that the characters involved in the struggle have to be real and interesting. If they are not, then the show is not likely to get a second season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have liked to see more of an anthology type series here, with standalone episodes (or perhaps a couple each) on the conquest, Maegor/Aenys, Jahaereys leading up to the DoD and then perhaps ending at Aegon the Unworthy's death/Blackfyre rebellion 1. And a varied cast throughout.

Oh well --- looking forward to this too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't see any way, though, to portray Aegon II and Aemond as sympathetic characters. They are pretty much scum in the book, so a faithful adaptation couldn't really ignore that.

Totally agreed. Also with the part about Dareon, mostly.

But here's the thing: To make this interesting, the Greens gotta have good characters among them: These ones should be Alicent (yes, I think she can be portrayed as a partially good character, in some way like Rhaenyra, but pushing all this because of his son), Helaena and Daeron. Now, Helaena cannot really be a main character in the show. Or at least I don't know how. Then there's Daeron, who also does not participate in the main plot but can have an interesting journey and can be considered a victim of his own family in the end. Then there's Alicent, who has to have an understandable reason. They have to make her character lovable (or at least her ambitions acceptable) to really generate an inner conflict inside the wiever. Also, at the beginning, back when Alicent tought gis future son takes Rhaenyra's place the moment he's born, they pretty much had a normal relationship. Friendship isn't that far from that, honestly.

I can also see them making up a friendship between Daeron and one of the Strongs, or giving Daeron a love interest, maybe him siding with the Greens because they are the family.

They can also make the Strongs not that loveable (I mean Luke) for cutting out Aemond's eye (at such a young age, Aemond's real personality might still be mostly unrevealed).

Hope you'll get why I think this story should be portrayed as a two-sided conflict. It'd make it interesting.

There's also Mushroom's tale of Jacaerys and Sara Snow. We don't even know if Sara Snow ever existed, but they might involve this plotline, making Baela (his betrothed) a love interest for Daeron. I know it sounds pretty weird, but I expect such things from the creators to make every Targaryen children a little bit more exciting.

I wouldn't mind such things, honestly (I mean filling up plotholes and giving background to secondary characters). My main problem is that the show does seem to go for being very-very PC, especially on the Blacks' side, and that they even give up accuracy for that. That makes me lose interest in the series.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Crixus said:

I would have liked to see more of an anthology type series here, with standalone episodes (or perhaps a couple each) on the conquest, Maegor/Aenys, Jahaereys leading up to the DoD and then perhaps ending at Aegon the Unworthy's death/Blackfyre rebellion 1. And a varied cast throughout.

Oh well --- looking forward to this too! 

The simple problem with that would be the rush. I mean, it would rather be a documentary film than a series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...