Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 107 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

Aegon's answer to his father ("everyone knows") and the absolute lack of outrage (even feigned) to it confirms that in the show the Velaryons' bastardy is treated as an open secret, known by virtually everyone at Court. As said in the previous thread, I find this utterly ridiculous and unrealistic. 

Aemond's sequence was amazing. He has shown himself to be the most Targaryen of them all. This is probably why Dameon didn't intervene in the matter and seemed to smile approvingly (the idea that Aemond should have asked Laena's family permission before trying to tame this monster of a dragon is, I am sorry, really ridiculous).

Viserys should have bowed to Aemond's sheer badassery on the spot and named him his new heir right there and then. There you go, Dance of Dragons averted. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I think as the season goes on, and I enjoy parts of every episode but get less and less enthused about the show as a whole, I'm starting to realize why it's not working for me.

Forget Game of Thrones. This show should be HBO's Rome... with Dragons! That show also had to deal with plenty of time skips. That show was also about civil war between two sides that ultimately had a lot of morally grey and often unsympathetic characters. And it was also an adaption of an incredibly complex historical period with tons of people involved in events (well, this time a real historical period with real people.)

But Rome was fun! It got you invested in those characters because they had life and charm and different values that you could partially sympathize with and which led to all sorts of interesting conflicts at a macro and micro level. And it prioritized certain characters over the course of those time skips, which sure, meant leaving many others out of the historical record, but also meant that you had consistent and elaborate character arcs. Finally, Rome had stakes: it had character stakes, because you cared about them, despite their flaws, and it also had stakes in that you saw what the civil war meant for people at all levels of society.

I think, ultimately, that's what this show needs: a focus on characters, a variety in tone, and stakes. Right now, four characters get focus, and everyone else is ancillary to the plot. The tone is consistently dour, making it hard to get attached to anyone, because they also don't stand for anything. And the stakes haven't evolved much beyond "should person A or B be ruler?"

Basically, to cut all my bullshit short, this show needs a Titus Pullo and Marc Antony and Atia to be in there, and to get as much development and attentions as its Caesar and Pompey.

This is my thinking exactly, this show needs a Titus Pullo/Bronn/Jaqen. Just a really amicable character that can go around and do Daemon's killing him for him. Harwin, Laenor, Rhea, Blood and Cheese, fix these issues with one solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RumHam said:

It's not headcanon, I just misunderstood. 

I'm tired of having this "good guys" conversation. Whether a character is "good" or not has little to do with which side they're on. I don't know why you keep thinking about it like this is Lord of the Rings or Star Wars and one side is totally 100% evil. 

Not everyone on the good side are ‘good’. 
 

I mean they are on the right side which removes nuance from the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RumHam said:

True, but like are they supposed to think it's a conspiracy or a moment of anger and passion? If it was a planned murder and he had help I think you then have to wonder what the motive was. That would naturally lead you to Daemon and Rhaenyra. Especially given the uuh...tasteless timing of their wedding. 

I dunno the whole thing seems like it comes apart if you think about it for too long, and I could see a parent not wanting to believe that unrecognizable corpse was her child. 

It was a planned murder of passion. ;) Which technically is like how it was shown. Qarl was waiting for Laenor in the great hall and Laenor yells "Who let you into my father's hall?" So if the witness, the squire, reports to Corlys and Rhaenys exactly what he heard and saw, they could believe Qarl had help.

Edited by Corvinus85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The bigger question for three-year-old Joffrey is how he managed to get past his guards unnoticed not once, but three times (first to confront Aemond, second to get his brothers, third to bring them back with him).

He is quite literally a sneaky little... illegitimate child.

Edited by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 No, we are point blank told in story some of these characters couldnt possibly know what they know because they are on the other side of the continent when things happen, so at best, you argument is that some things Mushroom says could be true, but some are clearly outright lies and his own opinions, but in the context of the story, no one would be writing down the opinions of a fool.  
 

Whatever the truth is to that specific passage it is not just a random detail pulled from whole cloth. 
 

There are certain things we know from the story at large which add to the idea or notion of their respective psychology. 
 

Whereas Alicent had four successful pregnancies and retained this sort of aura as a Queen, Rhaenyra lost hers and around the same time the moniker of “the realm’s delight”. She became despised by many in the city and isolated herself in Dragonstone away from her subjects she is supposed to rule. 
 

Was she jealous? We don’t know for sure but it’s a concept F&B introduces to us because otherwise Mushroom would never have been referenced to us at all. 
 

Compare that to the show where Rhaenyra is made out to be less stressful, at a calm, and with a freedom that allows her to raise better children than Alicent you can see how Alicent is given the short end of the stick for no other reason than to keep Rhaenyra from being dislikable and making sure people know they are suppose to hate Alicent.

11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:



You are choosing to believe Rhaenyra was jealous of Alicent being skinnier than here, which honestly makes no sense, but go at it.  
 

I don’t know why you feel the need to misinterpret the argument but you don’t come off as more enlightened by doing so. 
 

Rhaenyra was raised in court as this delightful princess who received the acclaim of those around her and the promise she will be queen. 
 

Then her stepmother who is her sworn enemy in court surpasses her in beauty, in terms of attention, and leaving her to the point of bitterness where she loses the moniker “the realm’s delight” and escapes to Dragonstone away from where all her subjects had sung her praise. 
 

Yeah, there is room for jealousy. But more importantly the reverse is never suggested which is why the show happens to be going out of its way to make Alicent more insufferable.

11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:



 

Again, not the opposite, and not even what the book argues. 

 

The book does not make the slightest gesture towards Alicent being jealous of Rhaenyra. Yet this is the approach they took which raises the question why?

11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

Rhaenyra has never once in the show or book threatened Aegon, Helaena , or Aemond before the dance happened. And to quote you "it doesnt matter why" LOL, we dont need the reason Alicent did it, we simply know she did it and it didnt start the night Viserys died.  
 

You didn’t get my post. This is a narrative, character motivation matters especially when discussing moral ambiguity or lack there of. 
 

Saying the reason Alicent crowns Aegon doesn’t matter shows you don’t really care about this story or you think so little of it that it’s not worth discussing. 

It is important whether Alicent thinks she is doing this for the realm, her children, her family, or for power. 
 

The rationale behind her decision affects the moral fidelity of her side and they sympathy it can encourage. 
 

Whereas if she is just evil Rhaenyra’s side is diluted into the “good” team regardless of methods.

 

11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:



Also, it cant be a 180 if you dont know the original reasoning. 

 

I’m talking from the show internally. The first five episodes make it clear Alicent doesn’t desire the throne. She circumvents her father in trying to undermine Rhaenyra and keeps herself a friend to the princess. She shows no interest in having her son as heir. 
 

The one motive we are given is when Alicent is led to believe her children are endanger if Rhaenyra ascends.  
 

Fast forward to the next episode and Alicent is showing no regards for the safety of her children, just pure ambition for the throne. That is a 180. 
 

And if they did to make sure people know Alicent is the villain then that is bad writing.

11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:


 

The only way that Alicent's argument would be morally viable would indeed be if Rhaenyra wanted  her kids dead. 
 

There are many ways they could have added nuance to the greens and they DID in the first five episodes. 
 

They showed Rhaenyra being disrespectful to the nobility suggesting she is not making allies. They could expand this to show how she is self-centered and disinterested in ruling well. Rhaenyra could become cold and lead Alicent to speculate the worst.  
 

If the realm hated Rhaenyra they would look for an alternative and then Alicent’s children would be threatened. If Rhaenyra gave Alicent the impression she doesn’t care about them it could motivate Alicent even more.
 

Instead by episode 6 they had Rhaenyra be calm, diplomatic, and even offer intrinsic protection to Alicent’s children through a marriage proposal. 
 

Which leaves Alicent’s constant undermining of Rhaenyra to come off as generic lust for power. Which not only dilutes the nuance behind her character, but further makes the greens into the “bad guys” so that all of the blacks in their desire to stop the greens have a heroic frame behind them, even if they do awful things.

11 hours ago, dsjj251 said:




 

Again, In the books, its one sided, we are indeed told the Blacks are the good guys , and its overwhelmingly so. 
 

Tell that to Martin. He is the one who insists this story has no good guys or bad guys. Which I think would be more compelling television. 
 

In fact it was during the first five episodes.

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Whatever the truth is to that specific passage it is not just a random detail pulled from whole cloth. 
 

There are certain things we know from the story at large which add to the idea or notion of their respective psychology. 
 

Whereas Alicent had four successful pregnancies and retained this sort of aura as a Queen, Rhaenyra lost hers and around the same time the moniker of “the realm’s delight”. She became despised by many in the city and isolated herself in Dragonstone away from her supposed subjects she is supposed to rule. 
 

Was she jealous? We don’t know for sure but it’s a concept F&B introduces to us because otherwise Mushroom would never have been referenced to at all. 
 

Compare that to the show where Rhaenyra is made out to be less stressful, at a calm, and with a freedom that allows her to raise better children than Rhaenyra you see how Alicent is given the short end of the stick for no other reason than to keep Rhaenyra from being dislikable and making sure people know they are suppose to hate Alicent.

I don’t know why you feel the need to misinterpret the argument but you don’t come off as more enlightened by doing so. 
 

Rhaenyra was raised in court as this delightful princess who received the acclaim of those around her and the promise she will be queen. 
 

Then her stepmother who is her sworn enemy in court surpasses her in beauty, in terms of attention, and leaving her to the point of bitterness where she loses the moniker “the realm’s delight” and escapes to Dragonstone away from where all her subjects had sung her praise. 
 

Yeah, there is room for jealousy. But more importantly the reverse is never suggested which is why the show happens to be going out of its way to make Alicent more insufferable.

The book does not make the slightest gesture towards Alicent being jealous of Rhaenyra. Yet this is the approach they took which raises the question why?

You didn’t get my post. This is a narrative, character motivation matters especially when discussing moral ambiguity or lack there of. 
 

Saying the reason Alicent crowns Aegon doesn’t matter shows you don’t really care about this story or you think so little of it that it’s not worth discussing. 

It is important whether Alicent thinks she is doing this for the realm, her children, her family, or for power. 
 

The rationale behind her decision affects the moral fidelity of her side and they sympathy it can encourage. 
 

Whereas if she is just evil Rhaenyra’s side is diluted into the “good” team regardless of methods.

 

I’m talking from the show internally. The first five episodes make it clear Alicent doesn’t desire the throne. She circumvents her father in trying to undermine Rhaenyra and keeps herself a friend to the princess. She shows no interest in having her son as heir. 
 

The one motive we are given is when Alicent is led to believe her children are endanger if Rhaenyra ascends.  
 

Fast forward to the next episode and Alicent is showing no regards for the safety of her children, just pure ambition for the throne. That is a 180. 
 

And if they did to make sure people know Alicent is the villain then that is bad writing.

There are many ways they could have added nuance to the greens and they DID in the first five episodes. 
 

They showed Rhaenyra being disrespectful to the nobility suggesting she is not making allies. They could expand this to show how she is self-centered and disinterested in ruling well. Rhaenyra could become cold and lead Alicent to speculate the worst.  
 

If the realm hated Rhaenyra they would look for an alternative and then Alicent’s children would be threatened. If Rhaenyra gave Alicent the impression she doesn’t care about them it could motivate Alicent even more.
 

Instead by episode 6 they had Rhaenyra be calm, diplomatic, and even offer intrinsic protection to Alicent’s children through a marriage proposal. 
 

Which leaves Alicent’s constant undermining of Rhaenyra to come off as generic lust for power. Which not only dilutes the nuance behind her character, but further makes the greens into the “bad guys” so that all of the blacks in their desire to stop the greens have a heroic frame behind them, even if they do awful things.

Tell that to Martin. He is the one who insists this story has no good guys or bad guys. Which I think would be more compelling television. 
 

In fact it was during the first five episodes.

I never had the impression, in the books, that Rhaenyra was that bothered about her looks.

And, quite clearly, a lot of people rallied to her cause.  The list of Black families is twice as long as the list of Green families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I never had the impression, in the books, that Rhaenyra was that bothered about her looks.

And, quite clearly, a lot of people rallied to her cause.  The list of Black families is twice as long as the list of Green families.

Regardless, she became bitter and isolated in court life which drives home the point nowhere was Alicent portrayed as Jealous of Rhaenyra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never really thought the books had a Black Bias because, speaking as a Medieval historian, I don't recall many historians going around calling their monarch adulterous fat harlots.

But the book does, repeatedly.

I do think the books would never record Alicent being jealous, though, because free spiritedness is shown to be a betrayal in Fire and Blood and punishable by death.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I never really thought the books had a Black Bias because, speaking as a Medieval historian, I don't recall many historians going around calling their monarch adulterous fat harlots.

But the book does, repeatedly.

Could you clarify what you mean? 

How does that quote suggest or not suggest a bias towards the Blacks? I'm not following.  

edit: I think I get it. I agree the books don't have a bias as both sides are made to be supremely unsympathetic. But that really hurt the reader investment and it was the show's job to add nuance to the characters and their motivations. 

Something it was doing until episode 6. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lady Fevre Dream said:

I thought Daemon was snickering at Vaemond Velayron's not so veiled remarks about Rhaenyra and "Laenor's" children.  He could hear the complaints and accusations of bastardy in Vaemond's glowing words spoken about what it means to be of House Velayron in relation to Laena and HER Velaryon children.  I took it as Daemon hearing it as a comparison and that he couldn't help but laugh at Vaemond's crassness in using Laena's funeral to get these veiled insults on record.  Hell, I suppose that is the main reason the writers had Vaemond deliver the remarks.  Still, I want to rewatch it (should I have the time, barely have the time to post, much less rewatch) to get the full gist of it.  These were my initial thoughts, though.

 

I think you mean that Vaemond was making snarky remarks about Rhaenyra's kids, supposedly Laenor's but actually not; so my mistake.  Still, a tacky thing to bring up at the funeral of Laenor's funeral; it must presage a future attempt by Vaemond to claim the inheritance of Lord of Driftmark for himself rather than Rhaenyra's second son.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

 

I do think the books would never record Alicent being jealous, though, because free spiritedness is shown to be a betrayal in Fire and Blood and punishable by death.

It is somewhat ironic as someone who argues that the show's recent representation of Alicent/Rhaenyra is consistent with the source material you reject stuff that was actually alluded to in the book while believing something that was never even implied. 

Regardless of what houses the Blacks were able to rally, at court Alicent outshone Rhaenyra who was not actually described as a free spirit but someone who lost much of her acclaim and had to retreat from the eyes of the public. 

You can believe the opposite, but really it goes back to the point: Why did the show excise the negative attributes from Rhaenyra and shift them over to Alicent. Rhaenyra does not show real frustration or bitterness at the fact that her step-mother is dedicated to seeing her fail. She takes it at the chin and has these general likeability that makes Alicent seem even more despicable in her crusade to the point the greens lose any nuance they might have had in order to better the story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I never really thought the books had a Black Bias because, speaking as a Medieval historian, I don't recall many historians going around calling their monarch adulterous fat harlots.

I believe one maester is pro-Blacks, another is pro-Greens, and then there is Mushroom, who is just salacious.

Edited by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

It is somewhat ironic as someone who argues that the show's recent representation of Alicent/Rhaenyra is consistent with the source material you reject stuff that was actually alluded to in the book while believing something that was never even implied. 

Regardless of what houses the Blacks were able to rally, at court Alicent outshone Rhaenyra who was not actually described as a free spirit but someone who lost much of her acclaim and had to retreat from the eyes of the public. 

You can believe the opposite, but really it goes back to the point: Why did the show excise the negative attributes from Rhaenyra and shift them over to Alicent. Rhaenyra does not show real frustration or bitterness at the fact that her step-mother is dedicated to seeing her fail. She takes it at the chin and has these general likeability that makes Alicent seem even more despicable in her crusade to the point the greens lose any nuance they might have had in order to better the story. 

My general opinion on the subject is that HOTD is a "fourth" history book and should be taken first as an Alternate ContinuityTM of FIRE AND BLOOD because it's a prequel to the Game of Thrones universe in much the same way that the Superman films are an alternate continuity of DC Comics. It is not something that can ever be 100% book accurate due to the fact that all of the accounts are deliberately contradictory. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the show hasn't been extremely faithful as a general rule and that it should stick to the Martin canon as much as possible if they have any hope of actually telling a decent story.

My general view of HOTD has that while my experience with the show has been overall positive, the show has been rushing through the storyline at a frenetic and destructive pace that undermines the character development of the protagonists. In mentioning that Rhaenyra being someone Alicent was jealous of having the ability to defy convention, I am pointing out the fact that its not a contradiction to the text and plausible given that much of Alicent's hatred for her seems to be the way that Rhaenyra flaunts convention.

It is indeed a change of the show that Rhaenyra doesn't become an overweight bitter woman who dislikes the fact Alicent remains hot until her death at middle age. However, I admit I find that a rather ridiculous thing for any historian to put into a document and think it is up there with a three year old sneaking around to attack his older brother. Its Martin attempting to add petty Mean Girlness where there generally wouldn't be.

55 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Could you clarify what you mean? 

How does that quote suggest or not suggest a bias towards the Blacks? I'm not following.  

edit: I think I get it. I agree the books don't have a bias as both sides are made to be supremely unsympathetic. But that really hurt the reader investment and it was the show's job to add nuance to the characters and their motivations. 

Something it was doing until episode 6. 

Honestly, this is something I don't get. A character doesn't need to be sympathetic to be interesting.

Look at all the Jaime and Stannis fans.

But I think you are correct that there is a disconnect between the sweet lovable girl of the first five episodes who is only now turning to the side of fighting for Aegon against her former friend versus the complete nutjob that Olivia Cooke's Alicent is. I don't disbelieve it could happen but I feel like we're missing some puzzle pieces in what broke her bad.

The thing is that episodes 1-5 also depicted someone a bit TOO reasonable to become the person she does and needs to be in order for the plot to be.

Edited by C.T. Phipps
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let’s keep in mind that while FnB takes on the format of a history book, it’s still a work of fiction written by an author trying to tell a story. I think people overemphasize the “unreliable narrators” angle. GRRM usually still manages to get his point across even if the details aren’t clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

My general opinion on the subject is that HOTD is a "fourth" history book and should be taken first as an Alternate ContinuityTM of FIRE AND BLOOD because it's a prequel to the Game of Thrones universe in much the same way that the Superman films are an alternate continuity of DC Comics. It is not something that can ever be 100% book accurate due to the fact that all of the accounts are deliberately contradictory. That doesn't mean that I don't think that the show hasn't been extremely faithful as a general rule and that it should stick to the Martin canon as much as possible if they have any hope of actually telling a decent story. 
 

I think Ryan said HotD is the definitive retelling of F&B. Being faithful to Martin’s canon would require keeping to the events in the order they happen (which incidentally has been to the show’s detriment) but the actual character psychology was left to the showrunners. 
 

If we go by F&B Rhaenyra is a bitter and vengeful queen. Alicent is the wicked step mother out for stepdaughter’s inheritance. 
 

Niether are very compelling because it’s a shallow framework from which to understand the mindset of a person and does not allow for a great deal of investment. 
 

If HBO is to stay true to the spirit of Martin, then we should take him at his word when he says this story he envisions (but was not able to fully realize) is not about bad vs. good but a nuanced rivalry where both sides might garner sympathy. 
 

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

 

My general view of HOTD has that while my experience with the show has been overall positive, the show has been rushing through the storyline at a frenetic and destructive pace that undermines the character development of the protagonists. In mentioning that Rhaenyra being someone Alicent was jealous of having the ability to defy convention, I am pointing out the fact that its not a contradiction to the text and plausible given that much of Alicent's hatred for her seems to be the way that Rhaenyra flaunts convention. 
 

It’s possible, but the question is if it is desirable for the show to frame it as such.
 

If Alicent is driven by jealousy then her side has very little moral fidelity and her character becomes a device to make Rhaenyra more likable offering viewers an easy side to root for.
 

But a conflict where both sides are given a perspective yet one is not able to capture any support plays into a one dimensional narrative experience that to me does not make good television.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

 

It is indeed a change of the show that Rhaenyra doesn't become an overweight bitter woman who dislikes the fact Alicent remains hot until her death at middle age. However, I admit I find that a rather ridiculous thing for any historian to put into a document and think it is up there with a three year old sneaking around to attack his older brother. Its Martin attempting to add petty Mean Girlness where there generally wouldn't be. 
 

Martin isn’t a historian and is prone to adding drama and suspense to his fake history. It is not trying to be a dry or scientific retelling but a broad overview with personality, color, and tension good enough for a TV adaption. 
 

F&B also had murder mysteries were the answer was not immediately revealed as to play up the readers engagement rather than have them become bored or disinterested. 
 

It all DOES have baring on the truth as he is writing the story the way he wants.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Honestly, this is something I don't get. A character doesn't need to be sympathetic to be interesting.

Look at all the Jaime and Stannis fans. 
 

Sympathetic in that their characters can not only be understood on an intellectual level but can also garner an emotional understanding from viewers that develops alongside the character.
 

Alicent disregarding the safety of her children in pursuit of the throne against an old friend who is attempting to mend ties might be comprehended on an intellectual level but that character lacks any nuance in her hatred and does not give a convincing reason as to why we should care about her motives. 
 

Which just leaves a generic villain that frames all the Blacks in terms of the ‘good’ side diluting their characters as well.

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

But I think you are correct that there is a disconnect between the sweet lovable girl of the first five episodes who is only now turning to the side of fighting for Aegon against her former friend versus the complete nutjob that Olivia Cooke's Alicent is. I don't disbelieve it could happen but I feel like we're missing some puzzle pieces in what broke her bad.

The thing is that episodes 1-5 also depicted someone a bit TOO reasonable to become the person she does and needs to be in order for the plot to be.

Alicent doesn’t need to be a generic villain. She could be given nuance and depth as for her reasons in opposing Rhaenyra. That would have made both sides more compelling. 
 

It was not the fault of the first five episodes for establishing a complex emotional relationship, it’s the fault of the last two episodes for ignoring that setup.

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ran said:

I had two issues with their burning him that way. Why were the guards trying to use pokers to lever his body out of the fires and not just grabbing the unburned legs and pulling? And, as noted, his body... so he's been a warrior fighting in the Stepstones and all that. Daemon's covered in scars. I guess we're to take it warrior Laenor never got himself some nice scars on his lower body as well? Anything is possible, but it does strain credulity a little bit about taking this risk, again.

Stuff like that for me simply falls under the necessary suspension of disbelief. Rewatch the scene, that fireplace is pityful small for the great hall of Driftmark. Every fireplace in every castle in the series is way too small to warm the big rooms. I just accept that for TV security reasons they are so small, as in reality it would be a wonder if anything remained from the corpse to be identified.

Edited by Ralph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...