Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 107 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But having another joy ride scene in episode 6 with Caraxes/Vhagar was pointless.

It was the first time we saw Vhagar, so no, I don't think it was pointless.  It was her "establishing scene" - and I thought they were indeed successful in establishing how mammoth she is.

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That could have been done easily by not dragging out that Aemond-Vhagar scene for so long.

Could they have?  You "seem" :P to be making a lot of assumptions here on how that cost could be allocated.  I think it's possible they could do more scenes with the dragons in the far background or flying away in panned out shots, sure.  But that's my assumption, and such scenes certainly wouldn't be "plot relevant," at least in my definition of the term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, dsjj251 said:

Yea, im not multi-quoting all that. 

You seem to want a TV show based on your head canon, and thats fine, but your head canon isnt fact, and you getting angry about that is weird. 

Also, when you get proven wrong, stop trying to back track and saying "well , i only said if, so i technically didnt say that".

I'm not angry dude, and I'm not talking about head-canon. 

Like if you want a conversation you have to try to understand what the other person is saying and not just throw around a bunch of colorful language. It's hard for you to prove me wrong when you argue stuff like: Rhaenyra never threatened Alicent's kids. 

Because that is my point. The Rhaenyra from the last two episodes was providing Alicent's children protection via a marriage pact. The problem with that is it ruins Alicent's perceived motivations and bestows onto her a lust for power not established in the previous five episodes. 

The characters from the book both had their share of flaws and could be conceived in a multitude of ways by the showrunners, but they decided to exclude any of the worst characteristics of Rhaenyra from the book while adding faults to Alicent not directly apparent from F&B (which already portrayed her in a negative light). Which not only undermines the characterization of the initial episodes, but also frames the Blacks and Greens in terms of hero vs. villains diluting the actions of the players based on which team they're on making for less compelling television (IMO).  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Surely you can't be serious. Saera said a whooooooole lot of self-serving bullshit.

Because no one wanted to rouse the Dragon. The current Targaryen line are all descended from the Conqueror's eldest born son, so the Faith can certainly just pretend Visenya and Maegor didn't really count and not much reason to make a point of it since it's ancient history.

Except, of course, Visenya was his first wife who was alive when Aenys was born. After all, Aegon married Visenya for duty and his second wife for love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

The Greens only win one battle in the Crownlands before Rook's Rest (Duskendale). First Tumbleton is a pyrrhic victory because Roddy manages to somehow kill both Bryndon and Ormund single-handedly. Tywin, Joffrey, etc. to me are supporting characters. Its not about Criston Cole having a front seat in the narrative. Its about important historical characters in general not being fleshed out and historical characters with a certain reputation in ASOIAF not living up to that reputation when GRRM presents us with these fake histories. How would Ulf and Hugh even know there were traitors, let alone meet them in secret, especially when neither was the soul of discretion? I know the Triarchy aren't true Greens and, as my posts should have made clear, that isn't my issue, which is that they win one pyrrhic victory before disappearing from the narrative, which is part of a larger problem surrounding the Greens generally being jobbers (in the wrestling sense of the word).

Edited by The Grey Wolf Strikes Back
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One decision they’ve made this season that I find questionable is how little they’ve done to introduce the other major players from the Dance. Hobert and Jason have had cameos, and Borros will presumably show up in the last episode (although he doesn’t do much until after Rhaenyra is dead), but other than that, there’s been nothing. I feel like it’s going to be overwhelming for viewers when all these predominantly male characters, who will look quite similar in their armor, are introduced and then almost immediately killed off. I think they’ll probably change some of the battles so that at least one main character is on each side. Jace and Daemon will probably fight a few more battles before taking KL, and Aegon might get injured later. 

One of my critiques of the Dance is that I think Jace was killed off too soon, so I wouldn’t be displeased if they changed that on the show. That said, I still expect for him to be the “big, shocking death” at the end of S2, just like Luke will be this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if Rhaenys and Corlys suspected Daemon of being involved in Laenor's death, wouldn't the prospect of Baela and Jace being heirs to the Iron Throne be plenty of motivation to join Team Black?  I mean Corlys is devoted to his legacy and grandkids consistently throughout the story and Rhaenys is shown in the episode as very protective of the girls.  Add to that it looks like Corlys' brother is making a play to contest Driftmark.  I mean he is using the Eulogy to openly imply that Laenor's kids are bastards (and ignores Laena's girls presumably).  The only response this gets is Daemon's laugh (the timing of it follows Vaemond's insult).  The Jace-Baela betrothal would satisfy the need for both the Velaryon blood and the name to inherit but it needs their parents to agree to it.  Of course then it would get harder to be allies without that there, which could add to why things were more troubled later. 

But I'll join in hoping we see plenty of scenes with Jace before we lose him.  I think I'm more just Team Bastard than Team Black or Green.  Hopefully they will do them all justice on the show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2022 at 4:03 AM, butterweedstrover said:

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?

I know this question wasn’t directed at me and that I’m butting in here a zillion pages later… but I have some thoughts.

Adapting the written word, where everything happens in the reader’s imagination, to a visual medium like film and television, sometimes creates obvious additional issues that cannot be ignored.

In GOT the biggest one was THOTU. In the book, because it’s from Dany’s POV, she doesn’t recognize anyone (at the Red Wedding) so the reader doesn’t either. But for TV, the audience would recognize people, places, even if Dany didn’t.

In HOTD, Alicent’s agency is mostly removed when Viserys decides she’s really the one female he can tolerate marrying who is kind, not a child, and seems to understand grief. She also loses her best friend, and becomes a brood mare.

Rhaenyra is everything she is not:

  • She’s brave enough to ride a dragon.
  • She’s confident and comfortable around men.
  • She has a father that loves her and while he wants her obedience for the sake of the realm, he doesn’t manipulate her to get it.

Alicent knows and resigns herself that she’ll never have a lover, or experience sexual pleasure like in the songs, stories, or those tapestries on the wall.

All of that is on full visual display for all to see in the series. It doesn’t have to be said in words, but the actors, especially they two brilliant Alicents, can’t ignore it. It has to affect them. 

Alicent is likely rightfully jealous of everyone at court who is happy. Viserys and Aemma were obviously madly in love. Corlys and Rhaenys are as well. Knowing you’re likely to never experience that while being a professional baby machine will eat your soul, especially since giving birth is dangerous AF.

Edited by ShadowKitteh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

I'm not angry dude, and I'm not talking about head-canon. 

Like if you want a conversation you have to try to understand what the other person is saying and not just throw around a bunch of colorful language.

My language isnt even colorful. Your are making arguments based on what you want the characters to be rather than what is actually stated on the page. 

In your own response to me, you said you took one of my statements to your perceived logical conclusion. Thats the end point of your favorite scenario, not a fact. and you are doing it in the context of the story in both book and show as well. 

 

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

 

It's hard for you to prove me wrong when you argue stuff like: Rhaenyra never threatened Alicent's kids. 

 

She didnt.  Never once in book or show did she threaten them, neither book or show even hints that she would, it is entirely speculation on the part of the Green faction that she cant reign without them being dead, and since you support that belief, you then argue that its fact she wants to hurt them. 

You agreeing with the belief doesnt make the claim itself true. 

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Because that is my point. The Rhaenyra from the last two episodes was providing Alicent's children protection via a marriage pact.

 

It has nothing to do with protection, because it was never a threat. 

 

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The problem with that is it ruins Alicent's perceived motivations and bestows onto her a lust for power not established in the previous five episodes. 

 

Again, opinions. 

I dont see Alicent as lusting for power in either situation. Thats my opinion, but show me the line in book or show that you define as lusting for power and we can discuss it. 

 

6 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The characters from the book both had their share of flaws and could be conceived in a multitude of ways by the showrunners, but they decided to exclude any of the worst characteristics of Rhaenyra from the book while adding faults to Alicent not directly apparent from F&B (which already portrayed her in a negative light). Which not only undermines the characterization of the initial episodes, but also frames the Blacks and Greens in terms of hero vs. villains diluting the actions of the players based on which team they're on making for less compelling television (IMO).  

 

The only bad trait taken from Rhaenyra was her homophobia towards Laenor, but even that was light in the books, what other trait are you claiming they took away ?

And yea, i already said i disagree about your argument from the first couple of episodes, so no reason to rehash that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

One decision they’ve made this season that I find questionable is how little they’ve done to introduce the other major players from the Dance. Hobert and Jason have had cameos, and Borros will presumably show up in the last episode (although he doesn’t do much until after Rhaenyra is dead), but other than that, there’s been nothing. I feel like it’s going to be overwhelming for viewers when all these predominantly male characters, who will look quite similar in their armor, are introduced and then almost immediately killed off. I think they’ll probably change some of the battles so that at least one main character is on each side. Jace and Daemon will probably fight a few more battles before taking KL, and Aegon might get injured later. 

One of my critiques of the Dance is that I think Jace was killed off too soon, so I wouldn’t be displeased if they changed that on the show. That said, I still expect for him to be the “big, shocking death” at the end of S2, just like Luke will be this season.

that's one of the things they had inevitably lost , when they decided on the structure . if they had done pre-dance in two seasons, say with child versions of the kids in season 1 ending with Rh&D wedding and with their teen versions in season2 , they could have enough time to establish alliances outside of the family , loyalties of council members , Velaryon and Strong families , etc. but I think with their decision to have 30 yrs in 1 season , they were successful enough to flesh out Hobert , Jason and Bormund. so , yeah , introducing all those characters will be a bit difficult next season , but it's a show that's introducing and killing fairly important characters per episode! 

 

4 hours ago, Painted Dog said:

But I'll join in hoping we see plenty of scenes with Jace before we lose him.  I think I'm more just Team Bastard than Team Black or Green.  Hopefully they will do them all justice on the show.

yep, that's my team as well:) they could end season 2 with Rook's Rest and season3 with Gullet if they want . needs some imagination, but still possible! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

I know this question wasn’t directed at me and that I’m butting in here a zillion pages later… but I have some thoughts.

Adapting the written word, where everything happens in the reader’s imagination, to a visual medium like film and television, sometimes creates obvious additional issues that cannot be ignored.

In GOT the biggest one was THOTU. In the book, because it’s from Dany’s POV, she doesn’t recognize anyone (at the Red Wedding) so the reader doesn’t either. But for TV, the audience would recognize people, places, even if Dany didn’t.

In HOTD, Alicent’s agency is mostly removed when Viserys decides she’s really the one female he can tolerate marrying who is kind, not a child, and seems to understand grief. She also loses her best friend, and becomes a brood mare.

Rhaenyra is everything she is not:

  • She’s brave enough to ride a dragon.
  • She’s confident and comfortable around men.
  • She has a father that loves her and while he wants her obedience for the sake of the realm, he doesn’t manipulate her to get it.

Alicent knows and resigns herself that she’ll never have a lover, or experience sexual pleasure like in the songs, stories, or those tapestries on the wall.

All of that is on full visual display for all to see in the series. It doesn’t have to be said in words, but the actors, especially they two brilliant Alicents, can’t ignore it. It has to affect them. 

Alicent is likely rightfully jealous of everyone at court who is happy. Viserys and Aemma were obviously madly in love. Corlys and Rhaenys are as well. Knowing you’re likely to never experience that while being a professional baby machine will eat your soul, especially since giving birth is dangerous AF.

Oh I agree there are reasons you can come up with for why Alicent is unhappy. My question was pertaining to the creative decision to go down that root. Because what we are left with is an imbittered character devoid of any real moral argument as to her position. 

As for your offered rational, it is not properly established in the show and functions more as head-canon. For example Alicent in the early episodes shows no desire to ride a dragon, or have a plethora of men at her beck and call, or even have any at all. We can hypothesize that all of this is a front and she wants to be just like Rhaenyra, but that is not what's established. 

What we do know from the screen is that Alicent was a friend to the princess who had no desire to take the throne and could only be convinced of that path when believing the lives of her children were at stake. Elsewise she did everything to undermine her father in that pursuit and attempted to keep good relations with Rhaenyra.

But by removing any rational fear for her children that perceived jealousy (which was not attributed to her in F&B) gets promoted into a motivating factor behind her pursuit for the throne. It makes her patently disagreeable, and suggests some craving for power which was not part of her characterization in the first five episodes. 

Meanwhile, any of those attributes either from the initial episodes or the book that cast a poor light on Rhaenyra have been done away with, making for an irrational moral deficit behind Alicent betraying her best friend. 

So really there are three things the showrunners decided to do on their own accord which they did not have to be done: 

1. Primarily situate Alicent's character around jealousy and ambition in the course of two episodes 

2. Remove any flaws that might be suggested onto Rhaenyra by the first five episodes or the book so that viewers will like her 

3. Transfer those flaws over to Alicent 

The work done to make a compelling character with Alicent are gone. The hypothetical reasons you offered might work on an intellectual level, but for audiences her behavior AND overarching goal are not sensible or emotionally resonant. Having a backstory that retroactively explains a villains origins does not make their actions as the villain any more sympathetic. 

By turning Rhaenyra into a person without those systemic flaws (from either the book or the show) such as her undiplomatic nature, her entitlement, her disinterest in duty, her jealousy, or her bitterness Alicent gets the short end of the stick. 

It removes from the Greens any rational and in turns puts the Blacks into a heroic framework as their end goal, that is to protect the female claimants rights, is fundamentally good. So now all their crimes are diluted into a means to the end like their murder of that nameless guard. 

And for a story with two duel perspectives offering ambiguous morality this set up fails. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

My language isnt even colorful. Your are making arguments based on what you want the characters to be rather than what is actually stated on the page.  

You're not making arguments about what I'm saying. Therefore tossing around language like 'I proved you wrong' is even more foolish as you don't seem to grasp how that does or does not play into what I'm saying.  

And it's funny that your bringing up "the page" as I have referenced the book multiple times as to how the show is being selective within its portrayal of Alicent and Rhaenyra, even against its own set up. 

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 



In your own response to me, you said you took one of my statements to your perceived logical conclusion. Thats the end point of your favorite scenario, not a fact. and you are doing it in the context of the story in both book and show as well.  

How is this conversation suppose to work when you make stuff up. That comment was in response to you saying it doesn't matter why Alicent betrayed Rhaenyra, only that she did. 

I mean seriously, if you're not interested in these questions then you don't want to see the narrative adapted. You assume it to be fundamentally evil and therefore don't understand how her motivations might add or remove moral depth behind her faction.  

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 

 

She didnt.  Never once in book or show did she threaten them, neither book or show even hints that she would, it is entirely speculation on the part of the Green faction that she cant reign without them being dead, and since you support that belief, you then argue that its fact she wants to hurt them.  

Do you even hear yourself? 

I argue that without that possibility Alicent's character falls through. In the show it was established that the only reason Alicent would oppose Rhaenyra's claim is if she were to believe that her children's lives could be in danger. 

There are a multitude of ways to do this. What we need is a rational for her to think this a possible outcome, either because of Rhaenyra or because of some inability for Rhaenyra to rule. By removing any question of that in the last two episodes, it makes Alicent's primary motivation a lust for power and jealousy against the princess. Which does not give her faction any moral or political standing and casts the Blacks into a heroic framing. 

The book does not definitively put its weight on one side or the other. It leaves room to imagine Alicent had such thoughts in her head by building up the rivalry between her and Rhaenyra, disclosing hints about Rhaenyra's morally dubious outings, suggesting her to be bitter or jealous, etc. 

All of that might or might not provide grounds for Alicent to have some sort of moral fidelity behind her position either from fear for her children or fear for the realm. In its last two episodes however it is made clear beyond a reasonable doubt that Rhaenyra would not do that and she even offers an olive branch to Alicent as protection for her children. 

Alicent ignoring these approaches leaves her with a lack of compelling motive as even lust for power is not something we are given reason to expect her to have and leaves the entire conflict at the center of this narrative to be relatively one-dimensional. 

 

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:


You agreeing with the belief doesnt make the claim itself true. 

It has nothing to do with protection, because it was never a threat.   

 

Oh dude come on, there is always a threat if not from Rhaenyra directly then someone else. 

Rhaenyra offering that pact however means Alicent is no longer driven by a love for her children. And the alternative motivations lack any depth for her character as she has not before shown a great lust for power and jealousy which itself is such a shallow and unsympathetic excuse for war. 

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:

 

 

Again, opinions.  

 

If the show does not offer a compelling reason for her to oppose Rhaenyra, the only two things left are power and jealousy, neither of which have much moral authority in the eyes of the viewer or much nuance in themselves to explore as neither jealousy or a lust for power were established in her character before hand. 

 

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:



I dont see Alicent as lusting for power in either situation. Thats my opinion, but show me the line in book or show that you define as lusting for power and we can discuss it.  

It's not established which is why leaving us with that impression is such bad writing. She shows no real lust for power in the early episodes yet now that, alongside jealousy, are the only possibly motivating factors left. 

The show might want us to believe she still fears for her children, but it does nothing to support that leaving in its place a villain who lacks nuance. If you strive for something without being given a rational ulterior motive, then it comes off as wanting that thing all along. 

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:



 

The only bad trait taken from Rhaenyra was her homophobia towards Laenor, but even that was light in the books, what other trait are you claiming they took away ? 

I think you might want to read F&B one more time. You said before Alicent and Rhaenyra don't have a rivalry in the book, which is just not true. 

They despise each other, but more to the point Rhaenyra is given room for this animosity. She becomes bitter, removed, and somewhat emotionally unhinged. 

F&B is not a traditional novel with in depth psychology, it is a book of perceptions that the show was suppose to add nuance and flavor to. And it did only for in the last two episodes to transfer upon Alicent all the negativity. 

Alicent is now undiplomatic like Rhaenyra originally was in the show and jealous like Rhaenyra was in the book.  

Meanwhile Rhaenyra is given attributes including a calmness, diplomatic eloquence, and a fundamental sense of duty that was never assigned to her in F&B or the previous episodes. 

7 hours ago, dsjj251 said:



And yea, i already said i disagree about your argument from the first couple of episodes, so no reason to rehash that. 

Well then there isn't much to talk about with someone like you. It's beyond me how your post gets a single like at all, you are either being deliberately obtuse or just rushing to reply to my comment without any interest in having a discussion.  

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

But by removing any rational fear for her children that perceived jealousy (which was not attributed to her in F&B) gets promoted into a motivating factor behind her pursuit for the throne. It makes her patently disagreeable, and suggests some craving for power which was not part of her characterization in the first five episodes. 

The "rationale fear for her children" argument was always going to be patently absurd.

Why?

Because if you have a fear your children will be perceived as a threat to the Crown to the point they must be killed regardless of social taboos and personal issues, then the solution is NOT to make them a threat to the crown to the point they must be killed regardless of social taboos and personal issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The "rationale fear for her children" argument was always going to be patently absurd.

Why?

Because if you have a fear your children will be perceived as a threat to the Crown to the point they must be killed regardless of social taboos and personal issues, then the solution is NOT to make them a threat to the crown to the point they must be killed regardless of social taboos and personal issues.

That would be playing it on the defense, and a very powerless defense at that, always at the mercy of the Queen's change of mind or of court politics. Surest way to get the princes out of harm's way is to get them on the throne.

As I said several times in Episode 6's thread, Aegon and his brothers are not some random cousins or nephews. They might be the rightful heirs to the Iron throne. No way any smart ruler would allow them to remain at liberty for ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

That's the thing. GRRM has the POV of all characters in his head, something we as readers don't have, which is why the way he talks about them doesn't always match what we see in the text.

Edit: I'm talking about F&B, obviously.

You sure? Because I thought you were talking about Darkstar.

4 hours ago, sifth said:

To be fair, this can be applied to some of the mysteries in F&B. GRRM clearly knows the answers to them, but we the readers probably never will. Like the note Aegon the Conqueror got from Dorne, that ended the war. We'll never know what it means, why it angered Aegon so much and why it caused him to end his war, but GRRM does. We can debate on it for the rest of our lives, but non of us will ever know if we're right or wrong.

If GRRM had been sitting on the reason why Aegon decided to conquer the seven kingdoms of Westeros and unite them into one nation at the time he decided to conquer them for years, then he almost certainly knows what the letter Aegon received from the Martells was about

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure it is that obvious with Rhaenyra's son.

It is obvious because Rhaenyra's sons are being consistently compared with the appearance of Daemon's daughters. Purposefully.

They also casted the boys specifically to make them resemble the actor who plays Harwin Strong. Which is weird because they make it so that the actor who plays Lucerys does look 1/4 black what with the wildly curly hair and narrow eyes (the latter of which he has in common with adult Laenor).

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure it is that obvious with Rhaenyra's son. I mean, Laenor is pretty light-skinned so any children of his fathered on Rhaenyra could all be white or 'white passing' easily enough. And the show kind of never mentions the Velaryons being black - like it the books it is all about the hair color (the eyes they fucked-up, cut) and kind of the noses. It isn't skin color at all.

That's the problem. Both Daemon's daughters should look more like Rhaenyra's sons in skin tone, if not in hair texture.

20 hours ago, Sotan said:

Can anyone confirm if The Doctrine of Exceptionalism covered polygamy? I always thought it prohibited incest for everyone except the Targaryens, but it never touched on polygamy. I ask this because to me it looks like Daemon and Rhaenyra's marriage is legal since they married in a Valyrian ceremony and the Faith of the Seven has no standing to invalidate it. Unless the DoE specifically prohibits polygamy. 

A Valyrian marriage is valid.

Aegon the Conqueror married his wives with a Valyrian marriage and Maegor took his second (or was it his third) wife in a Valyrian ceremony. Nobody, not even the king, could do anything about it because.

 

I think the incest is much more problematic than the polygamy to be honest. Jaehaerys' decision-making there confuses me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

The "rationale fear for her children" argument was always going to be patently absurd.

Why?

Because if you have a fear your children will be perceived as a threat to the Crown to the point they must be killed regardless of social taboos and personal issues, then the solution is NOT to make them a threat to the crown to the point they must be killed regardless of social taboos and personal issues.

Oh they absolutely could have, Aegon was not just some random cousin, he is the king's eldest trueborn son. 

But more to the point, this threat isn't exclusively coming from Rhaenyra. If Rhaenyra doesn't know how to rule the lords will start looking to Aegon on their own accord. How Alicent balances her loyalty to her life long friend, to her king, to her children in this environment might have been a fascinating psychological drama.  

There were so many possibilities and instead they used this low hanging fruit called 'jealousy' to extinguish in Alicent any favor she might have had towards Rhaenyra and removed from Rhaenyra any systemic flaw that might have drawn attention towards Aegon as a viable alternative. 

They went the most boring route and I think the entire narrative framework of a duel perspective suffers as such.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DMC said:

It was the first time we saw Vhagar, so no, I don't think it was pointless.  It was her "establishing scene" - and I thought they were indeed successful in establishing how mammoth she is.

That is why Vhagar should have been introduced earlier - say, when the Velaryons flew to KL for Laenor's wedding.

Yes, they later have dialogue indicating Laena claimed her only afterwards ... but that could have been easily changed. In fact, it could have been Laena's monstrously huge dragon which made her suddenly seem attractive to Daemon at the wedding.

14 hours ago, DMC said:

Could they have?  You "seem" :P to be making a lot of assumptions here on how that cost could be allocated.  I think it's possible they could do more scenes with the dragons in the far background or flying away in panned out shots, sure.  But that's my assumption, and such scenes certainly wouldn't be "plot relevant," at least in my definition of the term.

Well, not particularly plot relevant, but then ... the dragons are not all that relevant at that time for any plot. Even less so considering people rarely bring them up when discussing politics. But it would have shown that dragonriders do use their dragons to, you know, travel. Which Rhaenyra apparently rarely does.

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

@Lord Varys

The Greens only win one battle in the Crownlands before Rook's Rest (Duskendale). First Tumbleton is a pyrrhic victory because Roddy manages to somehow kill both Bryndon and Ormund single-handedly.

No, that's hardly a Pyrrhic victory. It is a total victory for the Greens. A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that cost the victor almost as much as the loser ... and it cripples his ability to continue the war thereafter or build on the advantage he has gained.

A dead general and his cousin shouldn't have crippled the ability of the Hightower army to continue their campaign. That it does is their own problem, something they could have overcome easily enough. They could have found a good commander or just decided to accept whoever was in charge now.

In a Pyrrhic victory scenario you cannot just conjure up more men or money.

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Tywin, Joffrey, etc. to me are supporting characters.

The main villains of that part of the series wouldn't count as supporting characters to me.

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

Its not about Criston Cole having a front seat in the narrative. Its about important historical characters in general not being fleshed out and historical characters with a certain reputation in ASOIAF not living up to that reputation when GRRM presents us with these fake histories.

Again, I'd have liked to get more about Cole and Redwyne there, but they are not exactly my top priority in a Targaryen history book.

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

How would Ulf and Hugh even know there were traitors, let alone meet them in secret, especially when neither was the soul of discretion?

How do you know neither was the soul of discretion? We know that there were Green agents and traitors among the Blacks at Tumbleton. Aside from Hugh and Ulf there were Roger Corne and Owain Bourney. Hugh and Ulf may have been approached by Green agents back at KL, on the march to Tumbleton, and there (by agents sent into the city by Lord Ormund) because it would have been known that they were not exactly happy with the rewards Queen Rhaenyra bestowed on them. They wanted more and those Green agents were willing to promise them more, one imagines.

12 hours ago, The Grey Wolf Strikes Back said:

I know the Triarchy aren't true Greens and, as my posts should have made clear, that isn't my issue, which is that they win one pyrrhic victory before disappearing from the narrative, which is part of a larger problem surrounding the Greens generally being jobbers (in the wrestling sense of the word).

But it is the same with the Blacks - Rhaenyra wins the city but cannot capitalize on that advantage, the Mooton-led attack on Sunfyre is a complete disaster, all the victories in the Riverlands don't help the Black cause at all. In fact, viewing the Riverlands campaign as Blacks vs. Greens makes actually little sense. With the Westermen and Crownlanders it is the Riverlords and their men cleansing their homeland of 'foreign invaders' - and one assumes that's why they are so successful there. They fight to defend their own and they know the terrain much better than the enemy.

12 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

One decision they’ve made this season that I find questionable is how little they’ve done to introduce the other major players from the Dance. Hobert and Jason have had cameos, and Borros will presumably show up in the last episode (although he doesn’t do much until after Rhaenyra is dead), but other than that, there’s been nothing. I feel like it’s going to be overwhelming for viewers when all these predominantly male characters, who will look quite similar in their armor, are introduced and then almost immediately killed off. I think they’ll probably change some of the battles so that at least one main character is on each side. Jace and Daemon will probably fight a few more battles before taking KL, and Aegon might get injured later. 

One of my critiques of the Dance is that I think Jace was killed off too soon, so I wouldn’t be displeased if they changed that on the show. That said, I still expect for him to be the “big, shocking death” at the end of S2, just like Luke will be this season.

I think that is part of the reason why I think they won't rush through the story. They must focus on introducing the Starks and Arryns and keep them on the screen afterwards, just as they have to make the war strategy make sense.

There are ways to juggle around events. I still think Rook's Rest could be a great finale for the second season, if don't rush through the other events. But they could move the Honeywine to an earlier point in time so that this battle will be also a crucial climax at the end of the season.

They also have to introduce lots of new core characters - the Hull boys, Hugh, Ulf, and Nettles, possibly Marilda as well, and, of course, Alys Rivers. 

They also have to build up and spend time with both Aegon the Younger and Viserys. The former will become a very crucial character and the latter, while pretty unimportant for the Dance, is still a major historical Targaryen figure and should be presented as such. Also, I think, they have to come up with stuff for Baela and Rhaena to do. They can't just stand there all the time.

Then there is the Laenor business to be considered, assuming he is going to come back.

And, of course, the personal relationships between the characters - Otto's fall from grace, Criston's rise from Lord Commander to Handship, the assassinations and assassination attempts, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That is why Vhagar should have been introduced earlier - say, when the Velaryons flew to KL for Laenor's wedding.

Yes, they later have dialogue indicating Laena claimed her only afterwards ... but that could have been easily changed. In fact, it could have been Laena's monstrously huge dragon which made her suddenly seem attractive to Daemon at the wedding.

Well, not particularly plot relevant, but then ... the dragons are not all that relevant at that time for any plot. Even less so considering people rarely bring them up when discussing politics. But it would have shown that dragonriders do use their dragons to, you know, travel. Which Rhaenyra apparently rarely does.

No, that's hardly a Pyrrhic victory. It is a total victory for the Greens. A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that cost the victor almost as much as the loser ... and it cripples his ability to continue the war thereafter or build on the advantage he has gained.

A dead general and his cousin shouldn't have crippled the ability of the Hightower army to continue their campaign. That it does is their own problem, something they could have overcome easily enough. They could have found a good commander or just decided to accept whoever was in charge now.

In a Pyrrhic victory scenario you cannot just conjure up more men or money.

The main villains of that part of the series wouldn't count as supporting characters to me.

Again, I'd have liked to get more about Cole and Redwyne there, but they are not exactly my top priority in a Targaryen history book.

How do you know neither was the soul of discretion? We know that there were Green agents and traitors among the Blacks at Tumbleton. Aside from Hugh and Ulf there were Roger Corne and Owain Bourney. Hugh and Ulf may have been approached by Green agents back at KL, on the march to Tumbleton, and there (by agents sent into the city by Lord Ormund) because it would have been known that they were not exactly happy with the rewards Queen Rhaenyra bestowed on them. They wanted more and those Green agents were willing to promise them more, one imagines.

But it is the same with the Blacks - Rhaenyra wins the city but cannot capitalize on that advantage, the Mooton-led attack on Sunfyre is a complete disaster, all the victories in the Riverlands don't help the Black cause at all. In fact, viewing the Riverlands campaign as Blacks vs. Greens makes actually little sense. With the Westermen and Crownlanders it is the Riverlords and their men cleansing their homeland of 'foreign invaders' - and one assumes that's why they are so successful there. They fight to defend their own and they know the terrain much better than the enemy.

I think that is part of the reason why I think they won't rush through the story. They must focus on introducing the Starks and Arryns and keep them on the screen afterwards, just as they have to make the war strategy make sense.

There are ways to juggle around events. I still think Rook's Rest could be a great finale for the second season, if don't rush through the other events. But they could move the Honeywine to an earlier point in time so that this battle will be also a crucial climax at the end of the season.

They also have to introduce lots of new core characters - the Hull boys, Hugh, Ulf, and Nettles, possibly Marilda as well, and, of course, Alys Rivers. 

They also have to build up and spend time with both Aegon the Younger and Viserys. The former will become a very crucial character and the latter, while pretty unimportant for the Dance, is still a major historical Targaryen figure and should be presented as such. Also, I think, they have to come up with stuff for Baela and Rhaena to do. They can't just stand there all the time.

Then there is the Laenor business to be considered, assuming he is going to come back.

And, of course, the personal relationships between the characters - Otto's fall from grace, Criston's rise from Lord Commander to Handship, the assassinations and assassination attempts, etc.

Spoiler

Something I find weird about the leaks is that it doesn’t sound like Criston Cole is really a kingmaker—which is kind of the main crux of his character. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Oh they absolutely could have, Aegon was not just some random cousin, he is the king's eldest trueborn son. 

But more to the point, this threat isn't exclusively coming from Rhaenyra. If Rhaenyra doesn't know how to rule the lords will start looking to Aegon on their own accord.

Inevitably. There always will be seditious lords, malcontents, plotters and would-be rebels, even if Rhaenyra makes a decent job of ruling. 

There is an argument going like this: "well, yes, malcontent lords could gather around Aegon's claim, but he can just say no".

Except it doesn't work like that. Even if Aegon remains steadfastly loyal, he will not cease to be a potential rallying point for all and sundry, whether he wants it or not.

Do we really think that dear uncle Daemon would not have thought about that? He would probably have had his nephews gelded and thrown into a black cell at the first whiff of rebellion in the Realm. 

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...