House of the Dragon Teaser Released

[Lady_Qohor]

I like what I've seen of the costumes so far, much better than the original show where some of the costuming seemed just plain weird. 

[Sotan]

On 10/6/2021 at 6:00 PM, The Bard of Banefort said:

Something tells me this show is going to be like Westworld and have a two year gap between each season instead of one. 
 

I thought Alicent looked way too young. Maybe the make-up department needs to do some work there. But who knows, maybe if there are gaps between each season, the actors will age better into the roles. 

That's a sure fire to lose an audience. One middling season and people won't care after two years. 

[Sotan]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

1. Vaemond wanted to be Lord of Driftmark the entire time, didn't get along with Laenor, and actually is the guy who paid Qarl Correy to murder Laenor. With Laena already dead, Corlys no longer has a legitimate heir of his own body.

2. With the 'Strong story' out in the open after the funeral, Vaemond demands to be acknowledged as heir to Driftmark then and there, resulting in Rhaenyra and Daemon killing him, and Viserys I cutting out some tongues.

If Vaemond was the guy behind Laenor's death this could also better help explain why Corlys stood with Rhaenyra and Daemon.

I am LOVING THIS! 

[StarksInTheNorth]

14 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I think they could condense things so that the Driftmark succession crisis breaks out immediately after Laenor's funeral. There we get the quarrel of the boys, and the first time Rhaenyra's sons are publicly called 'Strongs' - by members of the royal family, no less. The whole thing is out in the open and the king has to make a ruling.

At the same time, both trueborn children of Corlys Velaryon of Driftmark are dead. He would have to name a new heir (and it is kind of odd that he didn't do that in book but waited years and years and didn't even acknowledge an heir when he seemed to be dying in 126 AC).

The way to play up the role of Vaemond would be twofold:

1. Vaemond wanted to be Lord of Driftmark the entire time, didn't get along with Laenor, and actually is the guy who paid Qarl Correy to murder Laenor. With Laena already dead, Corlys no longer has a legitimate heir of his own body.

2. With the 'Strong story' out in the open after the funeral, Vaemond demands to be acknowledged as heir to Driftmark then and there, resulting in Rhaenyra and Daemon killing him, and Viserys I cutting out some tongues.

If Vaemond was the guy behind Laenor's death this could also better help explain why Corlys stood with Rhaenyra and Daemon.

I read a theory recently that the greens actually paid Qarl using that Hightower money, partially as a way to destabilize the blacks and make Daemon look sketchy. Condensing the timeline and using Vaemond as the go-between would make sense and add a heightened sense of drama to the whole affair.

Weve already seen that they’re playing fast and loose with the timeline (see: Alicent and Rhaenyra being closer in age potentially?). I could see the war breaking out sooner rather than later after Laenor and Laena die. As far as I can recall, the only real event between daemon and rhaenyra’s wedding was birth of her sons, the marriage of Helaena and Aegon (plus their kids), and Jace asking Helaena to dance. This can all be condensed pretty quickly.  Show a flash forward with Rhaenyra having two young boys as they arrive to King’s Landing for some major event. Maybe Jace asks Helaena for a dance at her wedding? Have the boys fight, Viserys roars in disapproval and cuts himself on the throne, end with everyone skulking to their corners of the castle. Bam!, next episode he’s dead. Helaena’s kids can be born during the war and blood and cheese can happen second or third season as things get ramped up. Aegon and Viserys don’t need to be their canon ages since we aren’t setting up Aegon’s reign and if there is a series, they can always just extend the regency. 

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

I read a theory recently that the greens actually paid Qarl using that Hightower money, partially as a way to destabilize the blacks and make Daemon look sketchy. Condensing the timeline and using Vaemond as the go-between would make sense and add a heightened sense of drama to the whole affair.

Overall, the Hightowers would have more to gain from Laenor's death than Daemon, so that's certainly a possibility. Although I'm more inclined to believe that Alicent convinced Larys to get rid of Harwin and Lyonel so that she could reinstall her father as Hand.

Rhaenyra might also have motivation to rid herself of Laenor if she allowed Daemon to impregnate after Laena's death and decided that she wanted Daemon as her husband now. But all that would indicate that Daemon or Rhaenyra wanted Laenor gone, and if this were true then the Velaryons must not know or suspect anything about that, or else their actions during the Dance make no sense at all.

Unless they also despised Laenor and wanted him gone.

3 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Weve already seen that they’re playing fast and loose with the timeline (see: Alicent and Rhaenyra being closer in age potentially?). I could see the war breaking out sooner rather than later after Laenor and Laena die. As far as I can recall, the only real event between daemon and rhaenyra’s wedding was birth of her sons, the marriage of Helaena and Aegon (plus their kids), and Jace asking Helaena to dance. This can all be condensed pretty quickly.  Show a flash forward with Rhaenyra having two young boys as they arrive to King’s Landing for some major event. Maybe Jace asks Helaena for a dance at her wedding? Have the boys fight, Viserys roars in disapproval and cuts himself on the throne, end with everyone skulking to their corners of the castle. Bam!, next episode he’s dead. Helaena’s kids can be born during the war and blood and cheese can happen second or third season as things get ramped up. Aegon and Viserys don’t need to be their canon ages since we aren’t setting up Aegon’s reign and if there is a series, they can always just extend the regency. 

I don't think that makes much sense, to be honest.

At this point, it seems to me they might have the Year of the Red Spring, 120 AC, as a kind of frame story. The show might start with Laena's funeral, and then we jump into the backstory of the Velaryons and the Great Council and the rise of Viserys I, Criston Cole's investiture in the Kingsguard, etc. When we get a scene of Daemon and Rhaenyra talking after the funeral, we jump in their backstory and the tribulations that led to Rhaenyra's marriage to Laenor. When we come to quarrel of the boys we go back and show how the Blacks and Greens developed, etc.

In that sense, I could see the end of the first season be the final formation of the Black and Green factions as they were in the very end of 120 AC. We get the birth of Aegon the Younger on Dragonstone, Otto Hightower's return to the Handship, Larys Strong rise to Lord of Harrenhal and Master of Whisperers, etc.

The fact that we have no (official) casting information on Aegon II, Helaena, Aemond, and Daeron as well as no information at all that Aegon III and Viserys II will even be in the show - and in light of the fact that, especially, adult versions of Aegon II and Aemond should be played by big name actors considering they are the main protagonists in the Green faction during the actual war, I don't think the first season can end with the beginning of the war.

Rather, I'd expect the second season would focus on the developing the characters of the children, i.e. the rivalry between Rhaenyra's sons and Alicent's children to the point that the audience understands how much those folks also hate each other. If that were missing then folks might not really be invested in the war.

Character-wise, it is also very crucial that we get to know, especially, Aegon II and Aegon III as characters. Especially, since Aegon II should be mostly absent during the actual fighting, being first injured and then gone for a considerable portion of the war. They have to take time with him while he is there. And Aegon III is going to 'win' the Dance, so they have to show to the audience that this boy is important. The more people like him, the more effective will his tragic story be as it unfolds.

I've no idea how they would show the story about Viserys, but there the best way were to indicate that he died only to bring him back being played by a different actor if they ever get to the Regency era.

[Sotan]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Character-wise, it is also very crucial that we get to know, especially, Aegon II and Aegon III as characters. Especially, since Aegon II should be mostly absent during the actual fighting, being first injured and then gone for a considerable portion of the war. They have to take time with him while he is there. And Aegon III is going to 'win' the Dance, so they have to show to the audience that this boy is important. The more people like him, the more effective will his tragic story be as it unfolds.

I've no idea how they would show the story about Viserys, but there the best way were to indicate that he died only to bring him back being played by a different actor if they ever get to the Regency era.

Aegon II as the leader of his faction can't just disappear, or be out of commission for most of the war. It would make sense to delay the battle of Rooks Rest to deep into the war, that way the King isn't effectively neutralized and Rhaenys who I predict will be a fan favorite doesn't die so early on. 

Viserys they can treat like Rickon in the show, he disappears for a long time and pops back up again, only he doesn't die. They can even expand on what happened to him in Lys, so the audience knows he's alive, but his family thinks he's dead. 

[Lord Varys]

52 minutes ago, Sotan said:

Aegon II as the leader of his faction can't just disappear, or be out of commission for most of the war. It would make sense to delay the battle of Rooks Rest to deep into the war, that way the King isn't effectively neutralized and Rhaenys who I predict will be a fan favorite doesn't die so early on. 

It is the story they are telling. That Aegon II and Rhaenyra are, for the most part, not directly involved in the war that's fought in a rather crucial feature in George's vision for the Dance. If they change that, they could just as well tell a completely different story.

Core elements of the story as given are that the effective leaders of the two factions are not Rhaenyra and Aegon but, at different times, Otto, Alicent, Aemond, Daemon, and Jacaerys.

The show has to reflect, just as GoT had to reflect that Joffrey and Tommen didn't really run the show - Tyrion and Tywin and Cersei did.

52 minutes ago, Sotan said:

Viserys they can treat like Rickon in the show, he disappears for a long time and pops back up again, only he doesn't die. They can even expand on what happened to him in Lys, so the audience knows he's alive, but his family thinks he's dead. 

They could do that, just as they could show Aegon II hanging out on Dragonstone. But the plot has both the return of Viserys as well as Aegon II ruling Dragonstone when Rhaenyra returns there as a surprise. If they don't go with that, then they could just as well change the entire twist about Rhaenyra's death.

[StarksInTheNorth]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

At this point, it seems to me they might have the Year of the Red Spring, 120 AC, as a kind of frame story. The show might start with Laena's funeral, and then we jump into the backstory of the Velaryons and the Great Council and the rise of Viserys I, Criston Cole's investiture in the Kingsguard, etc. When we get a scene of Daemon and Rhaenyra talking after the funeral, we jump in their backstory and the tribulations that led to Rhaenyra's marriage to Laenor. When we come to quarrel of the boys we go back and show how the Blacks and Greens developed, etc.

In that sense, I could see the end of the first season be the final formation of the Black and Green factions as they were in the very end of 120 AC. We get the birth of Aegon the Younger on Dragonstone, Otto Hightower's return to the Handship, Larys Strong rise to Lord of Harrenhal and Master of Whisperers, etc.

As much I personally dislike it a heavy reliance on flashbacks, it seems as if HOTD is handling this season with two timelines. If we have a "past" timeline that deals with the events between Alicent's arrival at court, the marriages of Alicent and Rhaenyra, and the events leading up to 120, then a "present/future" timeline with the events after 120, the ending of the season will accomplish two things: explaining the Green / Black divide in the past and preparing for the war.

However, those timelines will likely be simplified for the viewer's sake. Other semi-historical shows that have elongated timelines have typically condensed the timelines, likely to simplify it for the viewers. I'm thinking of shows like the Tudors, the Starz take on the Tudors (White Queen, White Princess, Spanish Princess), and Reign. The series are spread out across many years, but in 4-5 seasons they handle the events of decades by pretty intense condensing.

HBO has already simplified important debacles (like Vaemond as Corlys's brother) and outright changed others, like character ages (the assumed Aemond is a teen, instead of ten; Alicent and Rhaenyra are much closer in age). Continuing to do it for the set up makes sense. The next season can focus on gathering troops and allies: start with Viserys' actual death, rather than just being sick, then the green council, coronation of Aegon II, escape of the kingsguard, birth/death Visenya, black council,  coronation of Rhaenyra, and the peace negotiations with Grand Maester Orwyle. They can finish the season with the first major battle at Storm's End, and then maybe Blood and Cheese as the final event and/or a starting event in season 3.

Viewers are tuning in for what they consider the best of AGOT: the politics, the battles, and the fighting for the throne. Spending multiple seasons building up animosity doesn't make sense, especially when it took viewers exactly 2 episodes to get on Lannister/Joffrey hate wagon for AGOT.

Quote

The fact that we have no (official) casting information on Aegon II, Helaena, Aemond, and Daeron as well as no information at all that Aegon III and Viserys II will even be in the show - and in light of the fact that, especially, adult versions of Aegon II and Aemond should be played by big name actors considering they are the main protagonists in the Green faction during the actual war, I don't think the first season can end with the beginning of the war.

I'd argue that they probably won't be played by big name actors. The show seems to be leaning heavily into the Rhaenyra vs. Alicent build up, with those two being the heads of their factions (especially if they're of-age friends like some have speculated). If you recall, Aegon is ~22 when he becomes king and 24 when he dies. Using a teen actor who grows into the role across 4-6 seasons makes much more sense, especially given their previous casting patterns with Arya, Sansa, Dany, Jon, and Bran all growing into their roles as their character aged. Comparing that to suddenly aging up a teen actor to an adult actor doesn't make much sense.

Quote

Character-wise, it is also very crucial that we get to know, especially, Aegon II and Aegon III as characters. Especially, since Aegon II should be mostly absent during the actual fighting, being first injured and then gone for a considerable portion of the war. They have to take time with him while he is there. And Aegon III is going to 'win' the Dance, so they have to show to the audience that this boy is important. The more people like him, the more effective will his tragic story be as it unfolds.

I'd disagree re Aegon III. Granted, part of the reason AGOT felt flat at the end was that no one felt connected to Bran since he'd done nothing since season 3 or 4  and disappeared for all of season 5 without anyone noticing. But the lesson of the Dance seems to be that war makes terrible people from everyone and the trauma it does to the youth. You don't need to show a lot of that for it to work with a young Aegon III taking the throne that he never expected nor wanted. And anything that they would do could be built up with character moments between the battles, like how Shireen was built up between bigger events. It doesn't need to spend an entire season getting close with everyone.

Also off topic for this discussion, but re the Velaryon entrance: no one was smiling when Robert Baratheon rode into Winterfell, but that changed pretty quickly after the bows and words were said. I'd say the Velaryons aren't smiling for the entrance because it's a formal occasion and they'll do the more informal, happy greetings after the bowing. The age of the characters is approximately around the wedding, so there's not any particular reason for them to be upset.

[Sotan]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The show has to reflect, just as GoT had to reflect that Joffrey and Tommen didn't really run the show - Tyrion and Tywin and Cersei did.

I get what you're saying, but Tommen and even Joffery were minors. It made sense that others were running the show. For Rhaenyra to sit around Dragonstone and send her sons and former mother in law to die makes no sense considering she has a dragon. If she was a dragonless Queen, it could work. Even Aegon II gets into it at Rooks Rest. It was weird, but ultimately fine in the text, I don't think it will work on tv.

 

2 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Also off topic for this discussion, but re the Velaryon entrance: no one was smiling when Robert Baratheon rode into Winterfell, but that changed pretty quickly after the bows and words were said. I'd say the Velaryons aren't smiling for the entrance because it's a formal occasion and they'll do the more informal, happy greetings after the bowing. The age of the characters is approximately around the wedding, so there's not any particular reason for them to be upset.

You might be right, its like a half a second clip and we could all be reading too much into it. I just seems at first glance the Velaryons did not come to play lol. It looks like Laenor is being flanked by his parents, like they're going to war. But if it is the wedding feast, it should be a happy occasion for them, their boy is about the marry the heir, and if women are to obey their husband's, when she's Queen that would effectively make him King. 

[StarksInTheNorth]

13 minutes ago, Sotan said:

You might be right, its like a half a second clip and we could all be reading too much into it. I just seems at first glance the Velaryons did not come to play lol. It looks like Laenor is being flanked by his parents, like they're going to war. But if it is the wedding feast, it should be a happy occasion for them, their boy is about the marry the heir, and if women are to obey their husband's, when she's Queen that would effectively make him King. 

In the book, they all went into it knowing he way gay and she was against it ("my half-brothers would be more to his tastes") and that she was aggressive enough to not listen to him. This is also the family that seems to have inherited the most Targaryen fire. Rhaenys is Rhaenys and while we know little of Laena, she's said to be "A fiery young maiden, freshly flowered, Lady Laena had inherited the beauty of a true Targaryen from her mother Rhaenys and a bold, adventurous spirit from her father the Sea Snake." So I doubt they'd expect Rhaenyra to sit still, look pretty. My only other guess would be that this is set at the wedding of Alicent and Viserys, but I thought they had eloped?

[Sotan]

36 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

So I doubt they'd expect Rhaenyra to sit still, look pretty. My only other guess would be that this is set at the wedding of Alicent and Viserys, but I thought they had eloped?

It looks like Rhaenyra is wearing white, so I assumed it was the wedding feast. 

[StarksInTheNorth]

44 minutes ago, Sotan said:

It looks like Rhaenyra is wearing white, so I assumed it was the wedding feast. 

*tinfoil hat* I was actually thinking this was two scenes because the man leading the group in the shot of the Iron Throne has his hair different than Corlys and Rhaenys isn’t wearing her bullet necklace as far as I can tell.

Also while we’re on the topic of Velaryons, is there confirmation that there will be a young Laenor? @The Dragon Demands called the actor Adult Laenor but I got the impression we’d only had one Laenor sighted with young Rhaenyra, so there’d only be one at all. 

[Sotan]

2 minutes ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

*tinfoil hat* I was actually thinking this was two scenes because the man leading the group in the shot of the Iron Throne has his hair different than Corlys and Rhaenys isn’t wearing her bullet necklace as far as I can tell.

Also while we’re on the topic of Velaryons, is there confirmation that there will be a young Laenor? @The Dragon Demands called the actor Adult Laenor but I got the impression we’d only had one Laenor sighted with young Rhaenyra, so there’d only be one at all. 

Ugh I have to learn how to do multiple quotes in one post until then I will just reply lol. 

I did notice the other Velaryons when the camera is facing the high seat and Viserys and Rhaenyra. I just thought they were walking in front of them kind of like heralds. I did not notice Rhaenys was not wearing the bullet necklace. 

Yes young Leanor and Laena have been confirmed in a press release by HBO, the actor's name is Theo Nate. 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

As much I personally dislike it a heavy reliance on flashbacks, it seems as if HOTD is handling this season with two timelines. If we have a "past" timeline that deals with the events between Alicent's arrival at court, the marriages of Alicent and Rhaenyra, and the events leading up to 120, then a "present/future" timeline with the events after 120, the ending of the season will accomplish two things: explaining the Green / Black divide in the past and preparing for the war.

So far, there is no indication things will move past 120 AC. We got quite a few spy reports already, and most of that material seems to be covering earlier stuff.

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

However, those timelines will likely be simplified for the viewer's sake. Other semi-historical shows that have elongated timelines have typically condensed the timelines, likely to simplify it for the viewers. I'm thinking of shows like the Tudors, the Starz take on the Tudors (White Queen, White Princess, Spanish Princess), and Reign. The series are spread out across many years, but in 4-5 seasons they handle the events of decades by pretty intense condensing.

Of course, they will focus on whatever crucial things they are interested in. Nobody expects them to bother with the dates and other such things. They don't have to tell in what year Rhaenyra becomes heir or Alicent and Viserys marry, etc., nor do they have to tell us how old a given character is or how much time has passed since last we saw them.

They could do some of that, but they don't have to.

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

HBO has already simplified important debacles (like Vaemond as Corlys's brother) and outright changed others, like character ages (the assumed Aemond is a teen, instead of ten; Alicent and Rhaenyra are much closer in age).

Making Vaemond Corlys' brother isn't a simplification, it is a change. Or do you want to tell 'being the nephew of X' is more complicated than 'being the brother of X'? I don't think so. This change didn't make things simpler on any level.

Changing the ages make things easier on the production level ... which makes sense because you don't need so many child actors. But if the story stays more or less the same nothing is simplified on the plot level. It makes no difference if Rhaenyra and Alicent are roughly of the same age (it actually complicates things, most likely) or if Aemond is a ten-year-old or twenty-year-old when he loses his eye. Assuming he loses his eye in the same manner.

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Continuing to do it for the set up makes sense. The next season can focus on gathering troops and allies: start with Viserys' actual death, rather than just being sick, then the green council, coronation of Aegon II, escape of the kingsguard, birth/death Visenya, black council,  coronation of Rhaenyra, and the peace negotiations with Grand Maester Orwyle. They can finish the season with the first major battle at Storm's End, and then maybe Blood and Cheese as the final event and/or a starting event in season 3.

That would make for a very slowly-going season, and it would also break with how things were in season 1.

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Viewers are tuning in for what they consider the best of AGOT: the politics, the battles, and the fighting for the throne. Spending multiple seasons building up animosity doesn't make sense, especially when it took viewers exactly 2 episodes to get on Lannister/Joffrey hate wagon for AGOT.

Not necessarily multiple seasons - I could see the Dance starting in the middle of season 2, say, not them draggin things out until the very end.

But to make folks care about as constrained and silly a thing as a succession war between two branches of an inbred family - which is not even remotely as complex or enticing as ASoIaF with its many factions and supernatural threats - the audience has to like the characters, especially the younger ones who will take over for Rhaenyra and Alicent (neither of which is going to lead an army into battle, after all). If they don't do that, they shouldn't bother with this story.

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

I'd argue that they probably won't be played by big name actors. The show seems to be leaning heavily into the Rhaenyra vs. Alicent build up, with those two being the heads of their factions (especially if they're of-age friends like some have speculated). If you recall, Aegon is ~22 when he becomes king and 24 when he dies. Using a teen actor who grows into the role across 4-6 seasons makes much more sense, especially given their previous casting patterns with Arya, Sansa, Dany, Jon, and Bran all growing into their roles as their character aged. Comparing that to suddenly aging up a teen actor to an adult actor doesn't make much sense.

They still would have to cast good/promising actors for those characters, and we should have confirmation that they were cast if that was the case. At least if they were given considerable screentime - which they should if they were going all the way to the beginning of the Dance in the first season.

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

I'd disagree re Aegon III. Granted, part of the reason AGOT felt flat at the end was that no one felt connected to Bran since he'd done nothing since season 3 or 4  and disappeared for all of season 5 without anyone noticing. But the lesson of the Dance seems to be that war makes terrible people from everyone and the trauma it does to the youth. You don't need to show a lot of that for it to work with a young Aegon III taking the throne that he never expected nor wanted. And anything that they would do could be built up with character moments between the battles, like how Shireen was built up between bigger events. It doesn't need to spend an entire season getting close with everyone.

We should at least see young Aegon III in the first season as a boy if we got events until 129 AC. Because he is there. And the writers should write more scenes for him than for Luke or Joffrey since they are goners who don't do much.

3 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

Also off topic for this discussion, but re the Velaryon entrance: no one was smiling when Robert Baratheon rode into Winterfell, but that changed pretty quickly after the bows and words were said. I'd say the Velaryons aren't smiling for the entrance because it's a formal occasion and they'll do the more informal, happy greetings after the bowing. The age of the characters is approximately around the wedding, so there's not any particular reason for them to be upset.

We also know that Viserys I and the Velaryons were rivals in the past and are, essentially, never friends or particularly close. Things get somewhat better after the Laenor-Rhaenyra match, but that has clearly not yet happened in the scene we are talking about.

3 hours ago, Sotan said:

I get what you're saying, but Tommen and even Joffery were minors. It made sense that others were running the show. For Rhaenyra to sit around Dragonstone and send her sons and former mother in law to die makes no sense considering she has a dragon. If she was a dragonless Queen, it could work. Even Aegon II gets into it at Rooks Rest. It was weird, but ultimately fine in the text, I don't think it will work on tv.

That is what happened in the book, and I until we don't know they will change that I'll go with that plot. They do want to adapt that, after all.

Rhaenyra's story is that she suffers a stillbirth when she learns about her father's death and the Green coup, and she nearly dies over this. She is no shape to ride a dragon when the war begins. Shortly thereafter she loses her second son and falls in a deep depression and retreats to her chambers. There she remains for most of the first year of the war, until Jacaerys' death during the Battle of the Gullet. This is her 'Catelyn is attacked by the catspaw' moment, after which she takes charge again and conquers the Iron Throne.

This would mean that we might see Rhaenyra occasionally - weeping in her bedchamber, unable/unwilling to leave her bed, dress herself, receive visitors, or attend council session - but we won't see her doing important things. Especially not mounting Syrax and flying to war.

Rhaenyra is neither a general nor a warrior nor a particularly smart politician. And she should not be presented as such. After all, in the end she does lose the war.

 

[The Bard of Banefort]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Rhaenyra is neither a general nor a warrior nor a particularly smart politician. And she should not be presented as such. After all, in the end she does lose the war.

Yeah, looking back, Daemon was the warrior and Jace handled most of the diplomatic/political matters (making marriage contracts, arranging safe places for his younger brothers to stay until the war was over, recruiting and training the dragonseeds, etc.) He arguably did more politicking than Corlys did. It makes me wonder how much differently things would have gone had Jace lived to see his mother take the throne.

 

I remember there being a casting bio for Daemon that said his greatest desire was to earn his brother's love and approval. Was that legit? If so, then I guess that will be how they try to humanize him. I could also see them pulling a Cersei with Daemon by having him be a tiger-dad--after all, he did help raise four great kids (seven, if you include step-children) and there is some precedent in the books, with him "avenging" Luke through Blood and Cheese.

[Lord Varys]

6 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Yeah, looking back, Daemon was the warrior and Jace handled most of the diplomatic/political matters (making marriage contracts, arranging safe places for his younger brothers to stay until the war was over, recruiting and training the dragonseeds, etc.) He arguably did more politicking than Corlys did. It makes me wonder how much differently things would have gone had Jace lived to see his mother take the throne.

To be sure, they could change some of that stuff so Rhaenyra has more to do, but the basic plot would remain the same. Rhaenyra is stuck on Dragonstone and she is not riding Syrax to war until she takes the Iron Throne.

6 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I remember there being a casting bio for Daemon that said his greatest desire was to earn his brother's love and approval. Was that legit? If so, then I guess that will be how they try to humanize him. I could also see them pulling a Cersei with Daemon by having him be a tiger-dad--after all, he did help raise four great kids (seven, if you include step-children) and there is some precedent in the books, with him "avenging" Luke through Blood and Cheese.

We don't know anything about the relationship of Viserys and Daemon, especially not about their childhood and youth. But Daemon is much younger than Viserys, and Daemon clearly was a disappointment as a brother. Viserys gave him every opportunity to make himself useful, to establish himself, to not fuck things. And he failed at every opportunity. His comment that fighting wars is going to keep Daemon out of trouble is very telling.

Daemon should have some relationship with his children in the show - both his biological children and his stepsons - but I'm not sure how they can present him as a good father. He abandons all his children to their enemies when he throws away his life. And is separated from Rhaenyra and the children for most of the war, anyway.

Even if Nettles turned out to be his abandoned daughter - sort of taking care of her still is no excuse for abandoning Aegon, Baela, and Rhaena.

[The Bard of Banefort]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

To be sure, they could change some of that stuff so Rhaenyra has more to do, but the basic plot would remain the same. Rhaenyra is stuck on Dragonstone and she is not riding Syrax to war until she takes the Iron Throne.

We don't know anything about the relationship of Viserys and Daemon, especially not about their childhood and youth. But Daemon is much younger than Viserys, and Daemon clearly was a disappointment as a brother. Viserys gave him every opportunity to make himself useful, to establish himself, to not fuck things. And he failed at every opportunity. His comment that fighting wars is going to keep Daemon out of trouble is very telling.

Daemon should have some relationship with his children in the show - both his biological children and his stepsons - but I'm not sure how they can present him as a good father. He abandons all his children to their enemies when he throws away his life. And is separated from Rhaenyra and the children for most of the war, anyway.

Even if Nettles turned out to be his abandoned daughter - sort of taking care of her still is no excuse for abandoning Aegon, Baela, and Rhaena.

F&B said the brothers were close when they were young, and if I remember correctly, they were only born a few years apart. 
 

I think Daemon’s death will be portrayed as a sacrifice—he died to stop Aemond, the most dangerous of the greens. 

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

F&B said the brothers were close when they were young, and if I remember correctly, they were only born a few years apart.

They are four years apart. Viserys is born in 77 AC, and Daemon in 81 AC.

7 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I think Daemon’s death will be portrayed as a sacrifice—he died to stop Aemond, the most dangerous of the greens. 

If depicted faithfully, Aemond will be a joke and not the most dangerous of the Greens. He has the largest dragon, but all he uses Vhagar is terrorize peasants. That's not getting Rhaenyra off the Iron Throne, nor is it threatening her government. The Blacks could have pretty much ignored Aemond and nothing would have happened.

It may not have looked good if the queen wasn't moving against Aemond, but so what? If they had crushed the Hightower army and their dragonriders the war would have been over.

[The Bard of Banefort]

38 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They are four years apart. Viserys is born in 77 AC, and Daemon in 81 AC.

If depicted faithfully, Aemond will be a joke and not the most dangerous of the Greens. He has the largest dragon, but all he uses Vhagar is terrorize peasants. That's not getting Rhaenyra off the Iron Throne, nor is it threatening her government. The Blacks could have pretty much ignored Aemond and nothing would have happened.

It may not have looked good if the queen wasn't moving against Aemond, but so what? If they had crushed the Hightower army and their dragonriders the war would have been over.

I don’t know, I’ve often heard fans describe Aemond as a “badass,” so I don’t think most people saw him as a joke. Who do you think is the most dangerous Green then? 

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

If depicted faithfully, Aemond will be a joke and not the most dangerous of the Greens. He has the largest dragon, but all he uses Vhagar is terrorize peasants. That's not getting Rhaenyra off the Iron Throne, nor is it threatening her government. The Blacks could have pretty much ignored Aemond and nothing would have happened.

 

The point wasn't killing peasants, the point was to strike fear into the hearts of the Black Lords. It isn't just swords and spears and numbers that win wars, though they do help. It's morale. Imagine if you were one of the Black Lords and you heard that Prince Aemond was attacking castles, villages and towns. Wouldn't that sort of make you reconsider your allegiances? 

23 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don’t know, I’ve often heard fans describe Aemond as a “badass,” so I don’t think most people saw him as a joke. Who do you think is the most dangerous Green then? 

Aegon's a fat jape of a man, Daeron is just a boy with a young dragon, Helaena takes no part in the fighting, Aemond isn't the most effective, he just burns things and thinks people will follow his side. With that said, I think I'll go with Otto. He probably would have won the war, if not for the usurper messing him up.