[F&B spoilers] Adapting Fire and Blood's characters - Will they be faithful?

[C.T. Phipps]

A pretty obvious thread topic, this is about discussing how we're going to see certain characters translated from the page to the screen and what they might change about them doing so. Game of Thrones was famous for the many changes it made to its characters both for good and ill. Cersei Lannister became a far more nuanced and sympathetic woman versus the narcissistic psychopath she is in the books, Tyrion had a lot of his darker nastier qualities wiped away, Jaime was actually worse in many ways, and Joffrey's age-up means that his few redeeming qualities were removed.

Some thoughts from the trailers and show depiction so far:

1. It seems like they are going to be dialing down some of the nastier elements of Daemon Targaryen. Daemon in the books may have been responsible for the murder of Rhaenyra's husband, grooming her from childhood, and the Blood and Cheese incident. I think since they're presenting him as the romantic hero of the show that we'll be seeing him as a lot more roguish and less outright scum.

2. George R.R. Martin has already said that the show Viserys is a lot more dignified of an individual and responsible than the book version. Which I think might be an improvement. Book Viserys seems to have been a Robert who was utterly incompetent at ruling and little more than a puppet except for putting his foot down about Rhaenyra. The spoilers about preserving Westeros against the White Walkers already makes the fact he trusts Rhaenyra over Aegon a sign that he's probably deciding to keep to his current heir because he sees her as a better candidate.

3. I admit, I thought book Rhaenyra was also a particularly scummy person as we see her proceed to enact ruinous taxes on the Smallfolk, burn them with her dragon, and the infamous claim by Mushroom that she may have thrown Alicent as well as her sister-in-law into brothels. Not to mention Nettles. So we'll be seeing how much they tone her down for the show since they seem to be emphasizing her as a Daenerys figure when I thought of her as a Cersei.

4. I definitely think we'll see a full vilification of Aegon II with many Joffrey-esque qualities. I admit Martin added a lot of scummy elements (like being a frigging pedophile) in Fire and Blood but I think it'll probably be clear on the show that Aegon is someone that no sane person would want anywhere near to the throne. I'm inclined to think his brother will also be psychotically evil as well but probably more competent.

5. Making Aegon such a complete scumbag will also impact all the other Green characterizations as supporting THAT sort of man over Rhaenyra means that they'll automatically all take a level in jerkass/villainy. Criston Cole and Alicent Hightower will also lose a lot of audience sympathy for this.

So what are your hot takes?

[C.T. Phipps]

Well, we now have an actual episode to compare.

[PrinceRhaegar]

Well, they showed Daemon being nasty by maiming KL commonfolk with The City Watch, that is for sure. And Viserys, too, for what he did to Aemma.

[C.T. Phipps]

Just now, PrinceRhaegar said:

Well, they showed Daemon being nasty by maiming KL commonfolk with The City Watch, that is for sure. And Viserys, too, for what he did to Aemma.

I think they showed why he's the Prince of Flea Bottom and well-beloved. The City Watch undoubtedly did nothing for the people until they finally started applying the King's Justice.

[PrinceRhaegar]

4 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I think they showed why he's the Prince of Flea Bottom and well-beloved. The City Watch undoubtedly did nothing for the people until they finally started applying the King's Justice.

Yes, but the act itself was very nasty, ugly and bad, even tho it led to better life for the commonfolk in the future.

[Lord Varys]

On 8/20/2022 at 6:16 PM, C.T. Phipps said:

1. It seems like they are going to be dialing down some of the nastier elements of Daemon Targaryen. Daemon in the books may have been responsible for the murder of Rhaenyra's husband, grooming her from childhood, and the Blood and Cheese incident. I think since they're presenting him as the romantic hero of the show that we'll be seeing him as a lot more roguish and less outright scum.

I think the first episode already has Daemon's nastier elements in it. He is no true/gallant knight but the opposite of it. He enjoys cruelty, he frequents brothels, likes to deflower silver-haired maidens, and he has trouble controlling his temper. But he certainly loves his family very much, both his brother and his niece.

The grooming thing in the book is just part of Mushroom's nonsense. The other sources merely show that he liked Rhaenyra even as a child (while he was still the heir) and that he wanted to marry her when she was 'a maiden' (around 14 years old which is old enough for marriage in Westeros) - like pretty much any other lord or heir in the Realm.

We might see him commit some crimes in the future, etc. but I think the way he was introduced certainly indicates we get the full breath of the character.

On 8/20/2022 at 6:16 PM, C.T. Phipps said:

2. George R.R. Martin has already said that the show Viserys is a lot more dignified of an individual and responsible than the book version. Which I think might be an improvement. Book Viserys seems to have been a Robert who was utterly incompetent at ruling and little more than a puppet except for putting his foot down about Rhaenyra. The spoilers about preserving Westeros against the White Walkers already makes the fact he trusts Rhaenyra over Aegon a sign that he's probably deciding to keep to his current heir because he sees her as a better candidate.

I think book Viserys is more underdeveloped than incompetent. He still kept the peace and the Realm going, continuing Jaehaerys' projects. They had to flesh him out. So far, I think, the portrayal is character-wise not at odds with book Viserys since we don't really know him as a character. The thing they did change is his physical stature - he was always plump and grew enormously fat later in life. But that isn't his character, so changing it isn't that big of a deal. Although I really don't see a reason to abandon that part.

On 8/20/2022 at 6:16 PM, C.T. Phipps said:

4. I definitely think we'll see a full vilification of Aegon II with many Joffrey-esque qualities. I admit Martin added a lot of scummy elements (like being a frigging pedophile) in Fire and Blood but I think it'll probably be clear on the show that Aegon is someone that no sane person would want anywhere near to the throne. I'm inclined to think his brother will also be psychotically evil as well but probably more competent.

I think playing up Aegon & Aemond's uglier aspects is quite necessary to underline how silly the idea is that a man must rule. Especially if Otto is pushing for it, suddenly, now that we talk his blood. He pushed Daemon out of the succession because he was 'a second Maegor' but that his grandsons clearly would be make a fine third and fourth Maegor he is overlooking.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I think book Viserys is more underdeveloped than incompetent.

There are only about 200 pages about the Dance in F&B, so there was no room to flesh him out properly. Which goes for many if not most characters in that book.

[Winterfell is Burning]

The Dance in Fire and Blood works because both Rhaenyra and Aegon II are horrible people, and is understandable why anyone would be completely opposed to one of them. If they make her a great potential ruler only denied because she doesn't have a penis #feminism and he into Joffrey with dragons, then the conflict and the show become a lot less interesting.

[C.T. Phipps]

Just now, Winterfell is Burning said:

The Dance in Fire and Blood works because both Rhaenyra and Aegon II are horrible people, and is understandable why anyone would be completely opposed to one of them. If they make her a great potential ruler only denied because she doesn't have a penis #feminism and he into Joffrey with dragons, then the conflict and the show become a lot less interesting.

Ehhhh.

There's a lot of places they can go with this because Fire and Blood make Rhaenyra much more sympathetic AT THE START because Aegon is such a piece of shit while his mother/grandfather do such ridiculous bullshit to set himself up as king regardless of what his father made manifestly clear. It's just Rhaenyra suffers some serious sanity slippage that she burns King's Landing and orders her own people killed out of blind prejudice.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

There are only about 200 pages about the Dance in F&B, so there was no room to flesh him out properly. Which goes for many if not most characters in that book.

Yeah, but the image that he was incompetent mostly goes back to the 'he didn't prevent the Dance', 'he is to be blamed for the Dance' thing. Sure enough, he is to be blamed for that to a point, but it did happen after his reign and he didn't tell anyone to stage a coup or start a war.

1 minute ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

The Dance in Fire and Blood works because both Rhaenyra and Aegon II are horrible people, and is understandable why anyone would be completely opposed to one of them. If they make her a great potential ruler only denied because she doesn't have a penis #feminism and he into Joffrey with dragons, then the conflict and the show become a lot less interesting.

Rhaenyra in the book is neither a horrible person nor a genuinely bad ruler. She is loved and popular through most of her father's reign and still popular enough that half the Realm declares for her. She ends up being unpopular because of certain things she does, but it is clear that she wouldn't have made a bad monarch under normal circumstances. Not even if she had won the Dance, I'd say. She would have never used people as living torches like Aegon II did.

[BlackLightning]

I still don't get why does everyone think that Rhaenyra was such a bad person?

Sure, she has blood on her hands. And yeah, she's not a teddy bear but, hey...it's war. What did they expect.

She made a couple of really bad decisions but I can't really fault her for those. Scratch that, I can fault her for two bad decisions but outside of that. It is what it is.

Honestly, Rhaenyra is just a female version of Stannis without the fanatics.

I'm frankly appalled that people think that there would be any difference between Stannis and Rhaenyra. If Stannis would have taken King's Landing at the end of A Clash of Kings, then his rule of the city would be nearly identical to that of Rhaenyra's.

[C.T. Phipps]

21 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I still don't get why does everyone think that Rhaenyra was such a bad person?

Sure, she has blood on her hands. And yeah, she's not a teddy bear but, hey...it's war. What did they expect.

She made a couple of really bad decisions but I can't really fault her for those. Scratch that, I can fault her for two bad decisions but outside of that. It is what it is.

Honestly, Rhaenyra is just a female version of Stannis without the fanatics.

I'm frankly appalled that people think that there would be any difference between Stannis and Rhaenyra. If Stannis would have taken King's Landing at the end of A Clash of Kings, then his rule of the city would be nearly identical to that of Rhaenyra's.

Frankly, I don't see the two having much in common at all. Rhaenyra isn't going to institute a foreign religion due to their own attempt to bolster their own self-image nor is Rhaenyra an obsessive Lawful Neutral devotee to the law. Her ruling style seems much looser and her issues are related to a fanatical desire to avenge her dead children as well as an enormous fury over any sort of perceived betrayal.

[BlackLightning]

24 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Frankly, I don't see the two having much in common at all. Rhaenyra isn't going to institute a foreign religion due to their own attempt to bolster their own self-image nor is Rhaenyra an obsessive Lawful Neutral devotee to the law. Her ruling style seems much looser and her issues are related to a fanatical desire to avenge her dead children as well as an enormous fury over any sort of perceived betrayal.

When Rhaenyra took over the city, there were mass executions and curfews and all sorts of drab events. Which is understandable as her taking of the capital didn't end the war, she still had a lot of enemies in the field and the city that she had taken over had been pro-Green for quite some time. I don't think she was mad or cruel but there was a reason why she was called "Maegor with Teats."

Stannis would likely take the same courses of action when he took over the city....why? Because they both had enemies in the field and enemies within the city. In fact, it would probably an even grimmer place under his control as he would outlaw every vice that serves to distract the smallfolk with the most fleeting bits of pleasure.

Stannis-ruled King's Landing would also be a grimmer place but for the religious persecution that is guaranteed to take place. In fact, the riots that would probably expel or slay Stannis would probably be religious in nature if not in basis.

[Wightman]

Am I right in saying that Viserys (born 77?) is supposed to be still in his 20's during the first episode? (105 ish)?

[Colonel Green]

58 minutes ago, Wightman said:

Am I right in saying that Viserys (born 77?) is supposed to be still in his 20's during the first episode? (105 ish)?

They haven't given any ages, and aren't sticking strictly to the book timeline since the first episode's main events are said to be nine years into Viserys' reign.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 hours ago, Wightman said:

Am I right in saying that Viserys (born 77?) is supposed to be still in his 20's during the first episode? (105 ish)?

Well his wife appears pregnant with Rhaenyra and its stated to be sixteen years in.

[Raksha 2014]

On 8/22/2022 at 7:40 AM, PrinceRhaegar said:

Well, they showed Daemon being nasty by maiming KL commonfolk with The City Watch, that is for sure. And Viserys, too, for what he did to Aemma.

 

The only bad thing that Viserys personally did to Aemma was to allow the Maesters to give her a horrific death without painkillers - she would have died anyway, and that death was the only chance they had of extracting the child, who could be the male heir that Viserys desperately needed for the security of the realm, alive.  He did not enjoy or want to make that choice; he made it as a king and not a husband.  He loved Aemma.  It was painfully obvious that he could not tell her the truth of what was about to happen to her because he couldn't bear to say the words, not because he was being a sexist boor.  Given that the Maesters, the most learned physician-equivalents in Westeros, had just told Viserys that they could not give Aemma any more painkiller for fear of harming the unborn child, and that Aemma was going to die whatever happened, and that only way to save the child (who Viserys definitely believed was a boy) was to rip open her womb while she was conscious and free the baby.  Viserys was in a terrible position - his other possible heirs were his headstrong and hot-tempered younger brother or his young daughter who no one supported or wanted as heir (due to generations of tradition insisting on male monarchs).  I believe that Viserys made the only choice he could; though I think he should have told Aemma what was going to happen, but I understand why he could not do it.

[C.T. Phipps]

31 minutes ago, Raksha 2014 said:

 

The only bad thing that Viserys personally did to Aemma was to allow the Maesters to give her a horrific death without painkillers - she would have died anyway, and that death was the only chance they had of extracting the child, who could be the male heir that Viserys desperately needed for the security of the realm, alive.  H

I mean she was on the maximum amount of painkillers allowed without harming the child.

No, the issue is that they didn't get her consultation for any of this or inform her what was going on.

My wife described him as trying to calm a horse during it being put down.

[Raksha 2014]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I mean she was on the maximum amount of painkillers allowed without harming the child.

No, the issue is that they didn't get her consultation for any of this or inform her what was going on.

My wife described him as trying to calm a horse during it being put down.

 

From everything I remember about the laws of Westeros, Queen Aemma's permission or input was not necessary, only her husband's (as it would be in the European middle ages).  I had the impression that Viserys was not emotionally capable of telling his wife that they were about to cut her open to save the baby.

[Ran]

I agree, Viserys was too much of a coward to have that impossible conversation with his wife. It's the show's biggest signal that he's a weak man and not well suited to being king.