Jump to content

the next House of the Dragon thread


EggBlue

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Le Cygne said:

Or could it be to ASOIAF? I haven't looked at the trailers or anything, but catspaw and white walkers are in the books, too. As long as they don't reference a ninja jumping from a tree, or anything like that.

I see no reason why the show would be in a different continuity from what is still the most successful fantasy program of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in a very real sense they are already in a separate universe simply because of the subject matter.

In HotD dragons do have saddles, Targaryens do have prophetic dreams, dragons are weapons of mass destruction some Lannisters cannot shoot down with a bunch of super crossbows, dragons bond only with one rider for life (of the rider), and, most importantly, Targaryens are actually important in prophecy, the Kingsguard seems to be properly portrayed, etc.

This doesn't do away with GoT's later seasons, of course, but it is somewhat of a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Jon Snow show will probably be good. I hate Jon Snow but it will at least deal with the fallout from season 8 meaning the nonsensical ending must become tangible and rationalized and give the GOT universe more meat. 

Priests of R'hllor raise Daenerys. :) She stays in Essos. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Dragon Demands said:

An analysis video I've had on my "To Do" list for three years. Cranking it out just before the deadline of House of the Dragon starting :)

Why Army Sizes Are So Small During the Dance of the Dragons (Fire & Blood)
 

@Ran

Army sizes are actually realistic in The Dance of the Dragons.  It all comes down to logistics. There was a ceiling to army sizes in pre-industrial societies, simply because too many soldiers and their animals, in one place, would starve.

Naval battles, OTOH, could be enormous, because ships could carry immense supplies.

The rule of thumb is about one kilo of grain per day per soldier, and two per horse or mule, plus grazing.  On top of that, camp followers are at least as numerous as soldiers.  So an army of 10,000 would have a similar number of camp followers, and perhaps 6,000 horses and mules.  That means finding 30 metric tonnes of grain per day, to feed them.  That’s a big undertaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at the early reviews, I would say that they are about two-thirds positive, one-third negative. Even moreso than Matt Smith, Milly Alcock is receiving tremendous praise. The biggest sticking point seems to be the mid-season time jump, which some reviewers like and others loathe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time jump will only be in season 1. By the time of episode 8, all of the characters should have reach their final form so to speak. At least here the series is linear unlike The Witcher season 1. The audience might be desoriented at first when faced with a new actor playing an older version of a character but should be able to process this information after a few scenes with the new actor. I've heard from Grace Randolf (Beyond the Trailer) review that the show doesn't add title card like "X years later" after a jump which maybe they should have done to simplify the viewing experience to the more casual audience. But then again Vikings didn't do it either and the transition between child actors to older actors throughout the show worked well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

I've heard from Grace Randolf (Beyond the Trailer) review that the show doesn't add title card like "X years later" after a jump which maybe they should have done to simplify the viewing experience to the more casual audience. But then again Vikings didn't do it either and the transition between child actors to older actors throughout the show worked well.

The first and only title card in the first episode does that, more or less. After that there are contextual clues when you jump time, like the age of a very young prince where you know they were conceived in the prior episode.

Super-casuals will get a bit lost, sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess in the wake of Ran/Linda's 'Not A Review' they do reference that neither Aegon's mother nor Aegon's daughter-in-law were Velaryons. @Ran Can you confirm that?

Must say I really do loathe those reimagined Velaryons especially since that also seems to affect how Rhaenys and her children are portrayed. In the book, Corlys Velaryon is the best match a future queen could make - both because the man did what he did and because of the family he comes from which is the family the Conqueror's mother and the Old King's mother. By taking this away, Rhaenys apparently ended up marrying somebody one could view as a powerful and ambitious outsider.

They also seem to go with Corlys as a kind of weirdo self-made man as per his promo video there - while he did accomplish great things, he only greatly increased the family fortune, he didn't made it. And politically the Velaryons were much closer to the throne in the days of Queen Alyssa and while Daemon Velaryon served as Hand and master of ships than they were in Corlys' day ... who was only a couple of years on the Small Council and then a disgruntled rich gentleman sitting on his island.

The over-the-top violence in episode 5 also leaves me worried. There is a reason why this happens at a tourney in the book, and to imagine that Criston Cole just kills a bunch of people at a wedding feast and then can continue serving as before is ludicrous. In the books it is a great sign of Robert's weakness that he doesn't punish Gregor Clegane for the attempted murder of Loras Tyrell, but a Kingsguard actually killing people would reflect badly on the king's own person and the Crown - as if they were condoning such actions. And considering that Criston Cole is a nobody with no family ties to anyone important the guy would feel the unfiltered wrath of the king after this. Especially since he is the guy who survives this carnage.

57 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Time jump will only be in season 1. By the time of episode 8, all of the characters should have reach their final form so to speak. At least here the series is linear unlike The Witcher season 1. The audience might be desoriented at first when faced with a new actor playing an older version of a character but should be able to process this information after a few scenes with the new actor. I've heard from Grace Randolf (Beyond the Trailer) review that the show doesn't add title card like "X years later" after a jump which maybe they should have done to simplify the viewing experience to the more casual audience. But then again Vikings didn't do it either and the transition between child actors to older actors throughout the show worked well.

While it is clear that there is only going to be that one big time jump in the middle of season 1, I expect them to shy away from explicitly addressing the amount of time that passes during the Dance since it is apparently the case

Spoiler

that Joffrey Velaryon and, especially, Aegon the Younger and Viserys are still very young at the end of season 1,

meaning we might see multiple actors portraying as they grow up to be older. That, in turn, could mean the Dance doesn't last the 2+ years it does in the books but rather a greater number of years - say, five.

That could mean that 'the feeling' we will have in season 1 that there are smaller and bigger time jumps between episodes will never go completely away. Which I think might be a good thing because a show that first kind of glosses over many years only then to depict a very short amount of time in great detail may feel kind of off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearing about "sexposition" makes me worry for the show. 

I don't think mutilation or sexual torture is dark. I don't think it's mature. It's more silly how gruesome they take the violence and it can comes off as overly edgy. Yes, torture happens, sexual torture as well, and there is sex and there are brothels, etc. 

But maturity requires a bit of subtlety and leaving things to the imagination which can be even more terrifying. Dwelling on the actual details comes off as unserious and comical. I thought they had learned this lesson, but from the reviews its just going to be more of the same. 

This is probably what Martin meant when he called it "visceral".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I honestly don't know how to feel about this. I had hoped for and expected more universal praise, especially considering that Elio and Linda seem mostly happy with it.

Universal praise on the internet does not exist as much of the economy is driven by outrage culture.

There's plenty of people who have been preparing massive negative reviews for the show no matter what they did, I'm sure.

Because negativity sells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Hearing about "sexposition" makes me worry for the show. 

I don't think mutilation or sexual torture is dark. I don't think it's mature. It's more silly how gruesome they take the violence and it can comes off as overly edgy. Yes, torture happens, sexual torture as well, and there is sex and there are brothels, etc. 

But maturity requires a bit of subtlety and leaving things to the imagination which can be even more terrifying. Dwelling on the actual details comes off as unserious and comical. I thought they had learned this lesson, but from the reviews its just going to be more of the same. 

This is probably what Martin meant when he called it "visceral".  

I feel like Game of Thrones worked because of being a perfect combination of sex, violence, and stark contrasts to the idealism of other fantasy people had in their heads. So, there being a lot of sex and violence is a good thing because just removing all of that would make it no longer the show that became a cultural juggernaut. On the other hand, sexual violence really just turns people off especially when it's used as fanservice or for shock value.

We know Aegon II is a rapist but we really don't need it shown versus just stated or shown by the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...