the next House of the Dragon thread

[The Bard of Banefort]

Thanks for the videos! I’m guessing we’ll get Alicent, Corlys, and Rhaenys either later today or tomorrow.

[Lord Varys]

9 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Didn't Ryan Condal say that the black Velaryons were GRRM's idea?

No idea, really, but regardless who had the idea ... neither Aegon's sons nor Aenys and Alyssa's children were black, so they would have to change things there.

[EggBlue]

I really liked Daemon's video... why didn't Viserys make him Hand ?! he's totally right , it must hurt.. 

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

No idea, really, but regardless who had the idea ... neither Aegon's sons nor Aenys and Alyssa's children were black, so they would have to change things there.

Ah, it's based on an early idea of GRRM, where he imagined the Velaryons as black conquerors who came from the west.

[The Bard of Banefort]

49 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Didn't Ryan Condal say that the black Velaryons were GRRM's idea?

On an old blog post, George mentioned that he considered making the Valyrians black with silver hair. So while I’m not opposed to the change, Condal and co. are stretching the truth a bit here.

[Ran]

He did not say it was GRRM's idea, to be fair. What he said was what Bard notes -- that George once thought about whether he should have made them black, and it's the fact that George mused about it that made them think, "Well, why can't we make this particular Valyrian family black, since GoT never established them nor any other Valyrians?"

What's interesting is that we see the post in detail here, and it's clear it's not something he considered when he started writing. Rather, it was a response to contemporaneous criticisms of the TV show and he just sort of thought back to whether or not he should have done something else with them. And then provides the reasons why he probably wouldn't have done it even if the thought had occured at the time (e.g. black skin and silver hair reads too much like dark elves/Drow elves)

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

27 minutes ago, Ran said:

What's interesting is that we see the post in detail here, and it's clear it's not something he considered when he started writing. Rather, it was a response to contemporaneous criticisms of the TV show and he just sort of thought back to whether or not he should have done something else with them.

But again, this article says that GRRM toyed with the idea of making the Velaryons black "early on". Whatever that means.

https://ew.com/tv/house-of-the-dragon-cover-story-game-of-thrones-enters-new-age/

[Lord Varys]

Yes, black Valyrians were a kind of afterthought.

And to be sure - I also suggested this as because, frankly, it is not exactly the best idea to have an albino race come from a place in the far south and also have them as 'the fire race'. Realistically speaking, the albino Valyrians would have never developed in the Lands of the Long Summer via natural selection, nor would they have thrived there if they had kind of bred themselves into such an evolutionary dead end. Symbolically, the Valyrian look fit the Starks much better, being folk living in the cold north. I mean, whenever you think about a hothead, etc. the image you have in mind isn't some blond guy with blue eyes staring at you icily...

It is kind of silly to have pale-skinned folks like Egg have no problems with heat and sunburns at all.

In a new adaptation/interpretation of things going with black Targaryens might be an interesting idea. Just as one could also reflect the differences between Rhoynar, Andals, and First Men (to a point) by a racially diverse casting.

1 minute ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

But again, this article says that GRRM toyed with the idea of making the Velaryons black "early on". Whatever that means.

https://ew.com/tv/house-of-the-dragon-cover-story-game-of-thrones-enters-new-age/

That would be a misinterpretation of the statement Ran referenced above.

HotD clearly breaks with a central tenet of the books, namely that pure-blooded Valyrians are very inbred and mostly look alike. There is no room for racial diversity there ... although there certainly might room for that in the city of Valyria if there were lots of immigrants and slaves. But the elites would still keep their bloodlines pure, because that's their defining trait.

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

But again, this article says that GRRM toyed with the idea of making the Velaryons black "early on". Whatever that means.

https://ew.com/tv/house-of-the-dragon-cover-story-game-of-thrones-enters-new-age/

Yeah, I think that is a mistake of the telephone game. Frankly, I am pretty sure Condal said "the Valyrians", and the writer of the EW piece -- who made a number of notable errors in his pieces -- misunderstood it and read it as "the Velaryons". And by "early on", well, "early on during GoT" then became "early on when he was creating ASoIaF" for the writer.

George's Not-a-Blog are his own words, and they're unmistakable: he started wondering if he should have made the Targaryens (and the Valyrians) black back no earlier than when GoT started, and while the point was moot, he also admits there were issues with the idea that would have weighed against it if he had in fact thought of doing it back in 1993.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

George's Not-a-Blog are his own words, and they're unmistakable: he started wondering if he should have made the Targaryens (and the Valyrians) black back no earlier than when GoT started, and while the point was moot, he also admits there were issues with the idea that would have weighed against it if he had in fact thought of doing it back in 1993.

It would have had interesting butterfly effects since it would have meant that the Free Cities and the cities of Slaver's Bay would have been predominantly black slavers. I'd not have had any issue with that, but I can see a number of reasons why that may not have been popular.

Thinking a little bit more about the gender issues here:

In part, I think, George's take on Targaryen women is off. They are not just consort queens, they are the blood of the dragon themselves, born to the purple, with their own claims to the throne. Even if Rhaenys and Visenya hadn't been Aegon's co-conquerors and co-rulers, the incestuous marriages would have given the Targaryen women as much power and prestige as the royal wives had among the incestuous pharaohs of Egypt, especially the Ptolemies.

Meaning a Targaryen princess would have always expected to be more than just a baby machine or a queen consort - she would always represent and embody the magical dynasty as such, embodied by the dragons they rode during the dragon days.

The idea that Rhaenyra of all Targaryen women could have been pushed in the backseat because of her sex makes no sense. Even in George's kind of unrealistic depiction of dragonriding Targaryen women ... Rhaenyra was still set up from the start to be the next Alysanne. If she would not be the Heir Apparent, she would be groomed for her role as queen consort at her brother-husband's side - like Rhaena and Alysanne before her.

If one wants to see a conflict there, it would be one between Targaryen women who married their brothers and thus claimed what they viewed as their right from birth ... and interlopers like Alicent who ended up in the center of power at a place which was the rightful domain of the Targaryen women and should be reserved for them.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

HotD clearly breaks with a central tenet of the books, namely that pure-blooded Valyrians are very inbred and mostly look alike. There is no room for racial diversity there ... although there certainly might room for that in the city of Valyria if there were lots of immigrants and slaves. But the elites would still keep their bloodlines pure, because that's their defining trait.

Plus, it creates continuity problems in the show canon.

Given that Aegon the Conqueror and several other Targaryens are part-Velaryon, shouldn't the entire Targaryen dynasty in the show canon look a bit different? Including Viserys and Dany?

[The Bard of Banefort]

I personally don’t think we’ll ever see a Targ show that predates HOTD. The Conquest is good mostly for the lore; as a story it’s absurdly one-sided, with almost no challenges for the Targaryens. It would be like watching a slaughter. Jaehaerys has a lot of interesting pieces, but it doesn’t have a greater arc—there’s no climax. Even Maegor the Cruel would be kind of dull and would be the third show to end with the realm being saved by crowning a boy king. That said, if they did adapt any of these shows, they would most likely just retcon the Velaryon parts. Alyssa would be a Massey now, or maybe even Aenys and Maegor’s sister.

[butterweedstrover]

A lot of the hardcore ASOIAF fans on Quora use to say the series was about the Starks. 

The Starks were the core of Martin's moral vision. They were the core of the mysticism of the world, and the reason so little is written about their history is because it would reveal the end of ASOIAF. Targaryens in comparison were late stage addons. 

It is clear however the Targaryens have taken up the majority of the new content. AWOIAF, F&B, and Dunk & Egg are all based on the dragon family, meanwhile the wolves are left out in the cold. 

HBO wanted a show about northern mythology, but Martin was opposed and refocused the company on Valyrian mythology and the Dance of Dragons. I suspect any future content will also be Targ centric for many years to come as they hold more interest for the author than snow monsters. 

Poor White-Walkers. The future is Dragon Fire.   

[The Bard of Banefort]

17 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

A lot of the hardcore ASOIAF fans on Quora use to say the series was about the Starks. 

The Starks were the core of Martin's moral vision. They were the core of the mysticism of the world, and the reason so little is written about their history is because it would reveal the end of ASOIAF. Targaryens in comparison were late stage addons. 

It is clear however the Targaryens have taken up the majority of the new content. AWOIAF, F&B, and Dunk & Egg are all based on the dragon family, meanwhile the wolves are left out in the cold. 

HBO wanted a show about northern mythology, but Martin was opposed and refocused the company on Valyrian mythology and the Dance of Dragons. I suspect any future content will also be Targ centric for many years to come as they hold more interest for the author than snow monsters. 

Poor White-Walkers. The future is Dragon Fire.   

I don’t know if a “realistic” grimdark series could work as a TV universe, to be honest. Not because it lacks material, but because after a while the stagnation would become too repetitive, particularly where women are concerned. With real history, there is this sense of progress—eventually, if you go far enough, you’re going to get to a point where women start attaining more power. But with GOT, the brutal reality for women in Westeros is the end point. Rhaenyra isn’t going to win because in this universe, Cersei was the first queen. Rhaena isn’t going to be queen because she was alive even earlier. Every series will feature women being treated as bad or worse as they were during GOT. The smallfolk didn’t have rights in GOT, and they won’t have rights in the prequels (except for a brief period under King Egg, but even that will be a far cry from revolutionary). I never really cared that the universe of ASOIAF was stagnant for thousands of years, but I can easily see how that would present an issue in this case. There are lots of fun characters, but the politics remain almost exactly the same. The arguments being made one century are still being made during the next century. There’s no progress. 

[Angel Eyes]

27 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I personally don’t think we’ll ever see a Targ show that predates HOTD. The Conquest is good mostly for the lore; as a story it’s absurdly one-sided, with almost no challenges for the Targaryens. It would be like watching a slaughter. Jaehaerys has a lot of interesting pieces, but it doesn’t have a greater arc—there’s no climax. Even Maegor the Cruel would be kind of dull and would be the third show to end with the realm being saved by crowning a boy king. That said, if they did adapt any of these shows, they would most likely just retcon the Velaryon parts. Alyssa would be a Massey now, or maybe even Aenys and Maegor’s sister.

Plus the lingering question as to why Aegon sired kids pretty late, and only two at that.

[Black of Hair and Heart]

1 hour ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Given that Aegon the Conqueror and several other Targaryens are part-Velaryon, shouldn't the entire Targaryen dynasty in the show canon look a bit different? Including Viserys and Dany?

Clearly, that's not the case in the show. No Velaryon blood from Corlys's generation onwards makes it into the bloodline that continues the Targaryen dynasty. And Valaena Velaryon and Alyssa Velaryon don't need to be addressed since they've been dead for decades/centuries by the time HotD starts. 

[butterweedstrover]

2 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

But with GOT, the brutal reality for women in Westeros is the end point. Rhaenyra isn’t going to win because in this universe, Cersei was the first queen. Rhaena isn’t going to be queen because she was alive even earlier. Every series will feature women being treated as bad or worse as they were during GOT. The smallfolk didn’t have rights in GOT, and they won’t have rights in the prequels (except for a brief period under King Egg, but even that will be a far cry from revolutionary). I never really cared that the universe of ASOIAF was stagnant for thousands of years, but I can easily see how that would present an issue in this case. There are lots of fun characters, but the politics remain almost exactly the same. The arguments being made one century are still being made during the next century. There’s no progress. 

I could be wrong, but maybe that is because there is no post-ASOIAF content. Martin exaggerates with numbers so the 8,000 year old houses aren't reliable. For the time-being everyone in the world is sexist and medieval without much in the way of a meritocracy. 

If there is to be something of renaissance (incidentally women in 1600s England had more freedom than the 1800s which means not everything is linear) it would be ushered in with new leadership once the 'bittersweet' ending George has planned comes to play. 

Women in power in have so far gone crazy. Cersei, Dany, Rhaenyra, Lysa, etc. 

We can be generous and say this is because of how they are treated, but regardless that is how Westeros is portrayed. Female leadership is not seen as feasible in the context of the books and must somehow lead to unmitigated disaster. But if Sansa becomes Queen in the North that could be a break from norm. 

To get there we need an ending, and as long as the external content takes place previous to ASOIAF, then there won't be grounds for progress. And really since the Targaryens are now the focus there isn't much ground for a post Targaryen world, especially if the main series is never finished.  

[EggBlue]

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

A lot of the hardcore ASOIAF fans on Quora use to say the series was about the Starks. 

The Starks were the core of Martin's moral vision. They were the core of the mysticism of the world, and the reason so little is written about their history is because it would reveal the end of ASOIAF. Targaryens in comparison were late stage addons. 

It is clear however the Targaryens have taken up the majority of the new content. AWOIAF, F&B, and Dunk & Egg are all based on the dragon family, meanwhile the wolves are left out in the cold. 

HBO wanted a show about northern mythology, but Martin was opposed and refocused the company on Valyrian mythology and the Dance of Dragons. I suspect any future content will also be Targ centric for many years to come as they hold more interest for the author than snow monsters. 

Poor White-Walkers. The future is Dragon Fire.   

Stark content and Targaryen content in Martin's books reminds me of Vampire Diaries's main characters and the Originals and also the main couple in Mansfield Park vs. Crawford siblings where the secondary characters and their stories were more interesting .

but it's more than that in asoiaf universe , isn't it? with the main series being unfinished and Targ material coming more and more , the Targaryens and their dynastical future is overshadowing the story of White Walkers and the more fantastical parts of asoiaf. fan theories revolve around Targaryens , their history and their role in the story more and more . never mind that half the main characters in the main series are Starks and the threat is on their backdoor. don't get me wrong though , I continued watching the Originals long after I had stopped watching tVD and I would have been more than delighted to read about Crawfords , had Austin wrote about them ! likewise, I find historical Targaryens more interesting characters than main series's Starks and Targaryens combined , even with less compelling stories . but a lot of people may get disappointed if Martin finally writes more about his white Walkers , Bran Stark and magical level of asoiaf than Targaryen restoration to IT . 

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I don’t know if a “realistic” grimdark series could work as a TV universe, to be honest. Not because it lacks material, but because after a while the stagnation would become too repetitive, particularly where women are concerned. With real history, there is this sense of progress—eventually, if you go far enough, you’re going to get to a point where women start attaining more power. But with GOT, the brutal reality for women in Westeros is the end point. Rhaenyra isn’t going to win because in this universe, Cersei was the first queen. Rhaena isn’t going to be queen because she was alive even earlier. Every series will feature women being treated as bad or worse as they were during GOT. The smallfolk didn’t have rights in GOT, and they won’t have rights in the prequels (except for a brief period under King Egg, but even that will be a far cry from revolutionary). I never really cared that the universe of ASOIAF was stagnant for thousands of years, but I can easily see how that would present an issue in this case. There are lots of fun characters, but the politics remain almost exactly the same. The arguments being made one century are still being made during the next century. There’s no progress. 

I agree. Targaryens couldn't be entertaining for that long. the Dance is without a doubt the most TV friendly piece in Targaryen history where you get it all at one : political intrigue , family drama , magic, war and dragon fights . the rest of it doesn't offer much more than historical dramas. the worst part (ironically one that could be a really fun read for us book fans ) would be Aegon IV's reign ,basically Henry VIII, which would be about a terrible guy who does what he wants and gets what wants and never faces any consequence . at least with Henry VIII you get the church of England and the irony of his precious son never continuing his dynasty.

[The Bard of Banefort]

49 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

I could be wrong, but maybe that is because there is no post-ASOIAF content. Martin exaggerates with numbers so the 8,000 year old houses aren't reliable. For the time-being everyone in the world is sexist and medieval without much in the way of a meritocracy. 

If there is to be something of renaissance (incidentally women in 1600s England had more freedom than the 1800s which means not everything is linear) it would be ushered in with new leadership once the 'bittersweet' ending George has planned comes to play. 

Women in power in have so far gone crazy. Cersei, Dany, Rhaenyra, Lysa, etc. 

We can be generous and say this is because of how they are treated, but regardless that is how Westeros is portrayed. Female leadership is not seen as feasible in the context of the books and must somehow lead to unmitigated disaster. But if Sansa becomes Queen in the North that could be a break from norm. 

To get there we need an ending, and as long as the external content takes place previous to ASOIAF, then there won't be grounds for progress. And really since the Targaryens are now the focus there isn't much ground for a post Targaryen world, especially if the main series is never finished.  

I don’t think it’s as much of an issue in the books, since the histories are lore to enrich the main series. In a TV setting, where each show is supposed to stand on its own, however, I think it would quickly become repetitive. Women’s inheritance is just one example: every era would have someone mention that a woman should inherit next (Visenya/Rhaena/Rhaenys/Rhaenyra/Daena/Aelora/Vaella) and then someone will go “but they’re a woman,” and that would be the end of it. It would be the same situation presented over and over again, but there can’t be any progress because GOT needs to begin with no woman having ever (officially) sat the Iron Throne. (Maaaybe there’d be more ambiguity in a show about the North, since I don’t think it was ever confirmed in the show-universe that Sansa was the first Stark queen, but that would have to be its own thing separate from the source material).

It was quite interesting reading the YouTube comments for the HOTD trailer and every once in a while seeing someone say, “Wait, but I thought Cersei was the first queen of Westeros?”

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

I could be wrong, but maybe that is because there is no post-ASOIAF content. Martin exaggerates with numbers so the 8,000 year old houses aren't reliable. For the time-being everyone in the world is sexist and medieval without much in the way of a meritocracy. 

If there is to be something of renaissance (incidentally women in 1600s England had more freedom than the 1800s which means not everything is linear) it would be ushered in with new leadership once the 'bittersweet' ending George has planned comes to play. 

Women in power in have so far gone crazy. Cersei, Dany, Rhaenyra, Lysa, etc. 

We can be generous and say this is because of how they are treated, but regardless that is how Westeros is portrayed. Female leadership is not seen as feasible in the context of the books and must somehow lead to unmitigated disaster. But if Sansa becomes Queen in the North that could be a break from norm. 

To get there we need an ending, and as long as the external content takes place previous to ASOIAF, then there won't be grounds for progress. And really since the Targaryens are now the focus there isn't much ground for a post Targaryen world, especially if the main series is never finished.  

Nothing about Sansa’s book story (let alone the show) suggests that she will be a mould-breaking leader.  In the show, she got her throne, ruling a bankrupt depopulated realm, because her brother and a handful of oligarchs gave it to her.

There seems no place in this world for a figure like Elizabeth I, Maria Theresa, Caterina Sforza, St. Olga of Kiev, or Empress Theodora.  It’s presented as being an eternal truth that a woman can’t rule successfully.