Jump to content

House of the Dragon Flood Gates Open


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

New promotional video for HOTD with GRRM:

 
New shots:
  • Viserys with his hand over candles (we have already seen a still of that scene but not the scene itself) (0m5s)
  • Prolonged shot of Rhaenyra riding Syrax over the Red Keep (0m16s)
  • Maesters bringing the ballot box to Jaehaerys I at Harrenhal (1m1s)
  • Viserys with Aemma Arryn (I'm guessing this is at Harrenhal) (1m22s)
  • Ser Harrold Westerling escorting Alicent Hightower's wheelhouse in the streets of King's Landing (4m6s)
  • Rhaenyra's ceremony to become heir (5m11s)
Trivia:
  • Still no name for Otto Hightower's older brother, he remains "Lord Hightower".
  • House Velaryon confirmed to have been a seafarer family important for the trade and commerce of Old Valyria.

Must say dragonless Viserys talking about the Iron Throne being the most dangerous seat in the Realm is unintentionally funny.

At that time the Iron Throne was just an ugly and uncomfortable chair ... not dangerous.

And as expected ... it seems all the Targaryen-Velaryon matches prior to Rhaenys-Corlys are quietly dropped in the backstory. Which really sucks. I mean, regardless how it could work in-universe and how the characters should look like then ... why not just mention those marriage ties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

In the book it seems clear that Eustace's story that he said he didn't want to steal his sister's birthright must be nonsense. Aegon would have never thought it was Rhaenyra's birthright to be queen. Alicent and the other Greens would have made sure of that, at least.

But nobody but his mother and, perhaps, his grandfather would have even told him that he could be king one day, so he never expected it and was not prepared for it. It makes sense that he would not want to be king at first - kinda like Trump was surprised that he actually won the election.

That quickly changed as his insistence to be crowned and his unwillingness to compromise show. It is clear, though, that this is more stupidity speaking then him understanding what's going on. One of my favorite scenes with the young Aegon II is when he has no clue what to tell the traders and merchants in the wake of the Velaryon blockade of Blackwater Bay. He has no clear concept what his coronation meant, nor does he have any clear understanding what war means.

In the books Viserys had all the lords publically renew their vows to Rhaenyra as his heir multiple times. I don't think the Greens could have shielded Aegon from all of that. There was a period of time where Rhaenyra being the next queen seemed like a done deal. Things got worse and worse between the Black and Greens as the years went by but Aegon still lived long enough to remember the time before that. He wasn't part of the Greens inner circle nor is he a child like Joffrey, he's gonna hear what people beyond Alicent think. Rhaenyra's birthright to be queen would definitely be the obvious elephant in the room when they come to tell Aegon it's time to be king, regardless of how exactly he responded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Must say dragonless Viserys talking about the Iron Throne being the most dangerous seat in the Realm is unintentionally funny.

At that time the Iron Throne was just an ugly and uncomfortable chair ... not dangerous.

And as expected ... it seems all the Targaryen-Velaryon matches prior to Rhaenys-Corlys are quietly dropped in the backstory. Which really sucks. I mean, regardless how it could work in-universe and how the characters should look like then ... why not just mention those marriage ties?

I don’t think he meant it quite that literally, Lord Varys.

 

Looking at some of the discourse online, there are now people complaining that there won’t be more sexual assault depicted on GOT :rolleyes: Far fewer than those who don’t want to see it though. Ultimately, there’s no indication in the source material that any of the main characters were ever sexually assaulted, and thankfully it doesn’t sound like they’re going to change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don’t think he meant it quite that literally, Lord Varys.

 

Looking at some of the discourse online, there are now people complaining that there won’t be more sexual assault depicted on GOT :rolleyes: Far fewer than those who don’t want to see it though. Ultimately, there’s no indication in the source material that any of the main characters were ever sexually assaulted, and thankfully it doesn’t sound like they’re going to change that.

I remember reading a bunch of perverts on Reddit, complaining that Shireen was not stripped naked, prior to her burning.

Then there was another unhappy that Sansa wasn’t topless, while being raped.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denam_Pavel said:

In the books Viserys had all the lords publically renew their vows to Rhaenyra as his heir multiple times. I don't think the Greens could have shielded Aegon from all of that. There was a period of time where Rhaenyra being the next queen seemed like a done deal. Things got worse and worse between the Black and Greens as the years went by but Aegon still lived long enough to remember the time before that. He wasn't part of the Greens inner circle nor is he a child like Joffrey, he's gonna hear what people beyond Alicent think. Rhaenyra's birthright to be queen would definitely be the obvious elephant in the room when they come to tell Aegon it's time to be king, regardless of how exactly he responded.

No, the vows are never formally renewed. But Alicent's children definitely grew up with the knowledge that Rhaenyra was the Heir Apparent, and treated and styled her as such.

But Aegon wouldn't talk about stealing his sister's birthright ... because he would believe it wasn't her birthright but his, and an outrage that his father hadn't changed his mind about that. If he had doubts about his right to the throne then he would have likely argued that his father had chosen another heir and he couldn't challenge that ... not that his elder sister was the rightful heir in his opinion.

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don’t think he meant it quite that literally, Lord Varys.

Oh, I know. I just mean that being the king isn't a hard job in that era. The Targaryens are in charge. Nobody is challenging them. During the main series it is quite risky being king, but Viserys was a party king. He had fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No, the vows are never formally renewed. But Alicent's children definitely grew up with the knowledge that Rhaenyra was the Heir Apparent, and treated and styled her as such.

But Aegon wouldn't talk about stealing his sister's birthright ... because he would believe it wasn't her birthright but his, and an outrage that his father hadn't changed his mind about that. If he had doubts about his right to the throne then he would have likely argued that his father had chosen another heir and he couldn't challenge that ... not that his elder sister was the rightful heir in his opinion.

Nevertheless, even their account of Aemond for everything that is put paper about him from all sources afterwards is portrayed ignorant as being unaware of Rhaenyra's claim to the throne thanks to Alicent and the green's influence. If he had to ask the question of who is gonna rule between the two of them, I don't see why Aegon would think it a done deal. He might not talk about stealing but "Aegon would have never thought it was Rhaenyra's birthright to be queen. Alicent and the other Greens would have made sure of that, at least." is a needless extreme just as far in the other direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don’t think he meant it quite that literally, Lord Varys.

Looking at some of the discourse online, there are now people complaining that there won’t be more sexual assault depicted on GOT :rolleyes: Far fewer than those who don’t want to see it though. Ultimately, there’s no indication in the source material that any of the main characters were ever sexually assaulted, and thankfully it doesn’t sound like they’re going to change that.

The showrunners really bungled the message. There's apparently going to be a LOT of nudity in the show (surprisingly, quite a bit around Matt Smith) and the one sexual assault could just have been said to be there to establish the villains repulsability. Attempting to frame it as historically accurate is actually something that REALLY ticks off some people in the fandom because it's an overused excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

 

Looking at some of the discourse online, there are now people complaining that there won’t be more sexual assault depicted on GOT :rolleyes: 

While I'm sure there are people who want to see more sexual assault on the show for purely erotic purposes, I think the crux of the good faith complaints being made is the way in which the media narrative around the subject automatically equates "depiction of sexual violence" with "endorsement/exploitation of sexual violence". And the unspoken conclusion one would extrapolate from that, specifically "sexual violence as a a concept is forbidden and cannot be explored. Which is bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Black of Hair and Heart said:

While I'm sure there are people who want to see more sexual assault on the show for purely erotic purposes, I think the crux of the good faith complaints being made is the way in which the media narrative around the subject automatically equates "depiction of sexual violence" with "endorsement/exploitation of sexual violence". And the unspoken conclusion one would extrapolate from that, specifically "sexual violence as a a concept is forbidden and cannot be explored. Which is bad. 

Eh I think it’s more of a hangover from GOT, which definitely used SA to shock and titillate. They didn’t have to change Dany’s consummation scene with Drogo, or Cersei’s scene in the sept with Jaime, but they did. They didn’t have to have Meera and Gilly nearly get raped before being saved by someone else, but they did. And they didn’t need to create a nonsensical plot invented just so Sansa could be repeatedly assaulted by Ramsay, but they did. So I think it’s fair if people have some reservations here.

At the same time, it is kind of weird that most of the buzz around this show is about SA and not about, y’know, the story itself. HBO also seems to really want us to be talking about these dragons more. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the dragons are a big draw for the show, but I don’t think people care about them quite as much as HBO thinks they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Eh I think it’s more of a hangover from GOT, which definitely used SA to shock and titillate. They didn’t have to change Dany’s consummation scene with Drogo, or Cersei’s scene in the sept with Jaime, but they did. They didn’t have to have Meera and Gilly nearly get raped before being saved by someone else, but they did. And they didn’t need to create a nonsensical plot invented just so Sansa could be repeatedly assaulted by Ramsay, but they did. So I think it’s fair if people have some reservations here.

At the same time, it is kind of weird that most of the buzz around this show is about SA and not about, y’know, the story itself. HBO also seems to really want us to be talking about these dragons more. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the dragons are a big draw for the show, but I don’t think people care about them quite as much as HBO thinks they should.

I can't really think of any incident of sexual violence on GoT that wasn't done empathetically. And I don't personally have any problem with any of the scenes you listed. Dany's wedding night was an improvement on the books to be honest, and the only reason people really have a problem with the Sansa stuff is because they don't want to see Sansa get raped, which is kind of the entire point. 

But yeah, the sexual assault comments from the producers strike me as them just trying to get out ahead of all the bad faith criticism the original series got. I think they could have a bit more of a backbone about it, but they've got a bottom line to protect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

HBO also seems to really want us to be talking about these dragons more. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the dragons are a big draw for the show, but I don’t think people care about them quite as much as HBO thinks they should.

probably because they have cost them quite a bit!

42 minutes ago, Black of Hair and Heart said:

I can't really think of any incident of sexual violence on GoT that wasn't done empathetically.

I'm not sure if they even knew they were depicting sexual assault in some cases until they received backlash . ( ie, Cersei/Jaimie I think) which is disturbing as hell coming from two men living in  21st century . and I don't agree that they were all done empathetically especially that they were done in ignorance . as an example I remember an interview in which they talked about they just wanted a rough start for Drogo and Dany's relationship . well , rape(especially as clear as the show version) is not just a rough start .  book version , although has a consensual start , is actually a rough start considering they don't have any means of communication at the beginning .  

42 minutes ago, Black of Hair and Heart said:

 Dany's wedding night was an improvement on the books to be honest,

would you elaborate on your view? because as it is , I can't really see how it can be an improvement .

42 minutes ago, Black of Hair and Heart said:

and the only reason people really have a problem with the Sansa stuff is because they don't want to see Sansa get raped, which is kind of the entire point. 

as someone who had not read the book in that time what really bothered me was its unnecessary and how that storyline felt out of place . I don't think every rape scene should be omitted from stories when they are a part of the story (for example in the Last Duel which is basically about that rape(s) ) or when it can lead to more enlightening discussions . but including a rape scene for the sake of including it deserves backlash . 

with that story line ,Dark Sansa moment of previous season was completely destroyed .and despite seeing Sansa declaring that she does not run away because she is Stark of Winterfell as if she had a plan , she got raped which was a visual depiction of killing her character in my opinion and we saw her as a desperate prisoner who needs Reek to run away . honestly, I still thought they have included that godawful wedding in that season to show Sansa becoming more manipulative (like she showed hints of with Joff)  and give her a little more agency ,for example by turning Ramsay and Roose against each other or something . I mean that marriage would have still been rape for Sansa but at least her arc wouldn't have gone in such ridiculous way. and the cherry on top : she declared that Ramsay was necessary for her improvement! that one was infuriating  . honestly, they only used Sansa that season to be a catalyst in Theon and Jon's arcs and Brienne's reason to get to Stannis and her revenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Black of Hair and Heart said:

I can't really think of any incident of sexual violence on GoT that wasn't done empathetically. And I don't personally have any problem with any of the scenes you listed. Dany's wedding night was an improvement on the books to be honest, and the only reason people really have a problem with the Sansa stuff is because they don't want to see Sansa get raped, which is kind of the entire point. 

But yeah, the sexual assault comments from the producers strike me as them just trying to get out ahead of all the bad faith criticism the original series got. I think they could have a bit more of a backbone about it, but they've got a bottom line to protect. 

IMHO Dany’s and Sansa’s rapes, the sexualised torture of Theon (with the Violet/Myranda faux seduction scene) and the death of Ros, were very much put in to titillate or shock. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

IMHO Dany’s and Sansa’s rapes, the sexualised torture of Theon (with the Violet/Myranda faux seduction scene) and the death of Ros, were very much put in to titillate or shock. 

And it also made him look like an idiot. In the scene where Ramsay kills the men chasing Theon (really his own men), he tells Theon to ride east to Deepwood Motte to find Yara. Deepwood Motte is near the west coast of the North... which Theon should have known since the Ironborn are off the west coast.

Or did Maester Luwin never teach Theon geography?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly, the Daenerys change in the first episode was meant to be a fix to what was perceived as unfortunate implications: that a 13 year old girl cannot meaningful consent under those circumstances or would be able to be won over to sex with a 30 year old Blood Rider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Denam_Pavel said:

Nevertheless, even their account of Aemond for everything that is put paper about him from all sources afterwards is portrayed ignorant as being unaware of Rhaenyra's claim to the throne thanks to Alicent and the green's influence. If he had to ask the question of who is gonna rule between the two of them, I don't see why Aegon would think it a done deal. He might not talk about stealing but "Aegon would have never thought it was Rhaenyra's birthright to be queen. Alicent and the other Greens would have made sure of that, at least." is a needless extreme just as far in the other direction.

Aemond's question is about whether they actually stage a coup or whether they will accept Viserys' decision that Rhaenyra will be queen. And that was a question still up in the air at that point.

2 hours ago, Black of Hair and Heart said:

Dany's wedding night was an improvement on the books to be honest.

No, it wasn't. It completely changed the meaning of this thing. In the show Drogo just rapes Daenerys. In the book he forces her into a wedding but leaves it to her whether they consummate the marriage then and there or not. It is her call in the end.

Of course, George later moves into marital rape territory with the sex they have later which is not just something she didn't enjoys, but also something she would rather not do ... meaning it is rape.

34 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Oddly, the Daenerys change in the first episode was meant to be a fix to what was perceived as unfortunate implications: that a 13 year old girl cannot meaningful consent under those circumstances or would be able to be won over to sex with a 30 year old Blood Rider.

That would be the case if show Daenerys was also 13 ... which she isn't. They turned something that could have been a kind of weird wedding night where the woman is actually sexually aroused and wants to go through with things of her own free will ... into something that's clearly and unmistakenly rape.

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

At the same time, it is kind of weird that most of the buzz around this show is about SA and not about, y’know, the story itself. HBO also seems to really want us to be talking about these dragons more. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the dragons are a big draw for the show, but I don’t think people care about them quite as much as HBO thinks they should.

Insofar as boundary pushing in the sexual department goes they could certainly also turn Criston's seduction into something that happens not *exactly* because he wants it to happen, exploring how powerful women might exploit men who cannot really say no to them. The way those leaks describe the Rhaenyra-Criston thing is that Rhaenyra is really horny and goes to Criston basically because she wants to fuck. He is in a position where he cannot really say no to the Heir Apparent, and sexual attraction or not ... it is a very low move to use somebody who has sworn a vow of celibacy as a guy to blow off steam.

He is certainly not justified in hating her afterwards ... but she may have turned to a guy who would be less conflicted of a one-night stand than Criston. The guy is basically just his vows ... and if he truly loves her then being used and discarded like that means she never respected him or his vows. Or at least that's how he might interpret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Oddly, the Daenerys change in the first episode was meant to be a fix to what was perceived as unfortunate implications: that a 13 year old girl cannot meaningful consent under those circumstances or would be able to be won over to sex with a 30 year old Blood Rider.

The problem is, they aged Dany up to 16, which is at or above the age of consent in most places. So they fixed one problem just to create a new one.

9 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

https://people.com/tv/matt-smith-says-game-of-thrones-house-of-the-dragon-has-slightly-too-much-sex/

Matt Smith has an opinion on his sex scenes and sex in general in the show.

I like what he said about how adaptations should stay loyal to the books :D

All HBO wants is for us to talk about them dragons, and instead we’re talking about this shit! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Insofar as boundary pushing in the sexual department goes they could certainly also turn Criston's seduction into something that happens not *exactly* because he wants it to happen, exploring how powerful women might exploit men who cannot really say no to them. The way those leaks describe the Rhaenyra-Criston thing is that Rhaenyra is really horny and goes to Criston basically because she wants to fuck. He is in a position where he cannot really say no to the Heir Apparent, and sexual attraction or not ... it is a very low move to use somebody who has sworn a vow of celibacy as a guy to blow off steam.

He is certainly not justified in hating her afterwards ... but she may have turned to a guy who would be less conflicted of a one-night stand than Criston. The guy is basically just his vows ... and if he truly loves her then being used and discarded like that means she never respected him or his vows. Or at least that's how he might interpret it.

I mean he can absolutely say no and is obligated given she's the Heir Apparent in a misogynist society and the history of Westeros makes it clear that sleeping with a Royal Princess out of wedlock is punishable by gelding, the Night's Watch. or death let alone that he's a Kingsguardsman.

And the book never makes it clear that anything happens with them.

Indeed, Glydan makes it clear that he was horrified at a sexually aggressive woman no matter what his feelings towards her were.

So him sleeping with her is a big change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...