[Spoilers] Episode 107 Discussion

[frenin]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

I find this idea that if the greens "honestly believed" Rhaenyra was gonna kill them all it would make them morally righteous rather comical.  I'm sure at least some of Dubya/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz etc. "honestly believed" Saddam had WMD's and was intent on using them, it still doesn't make them any less wrong and villainous for invading Iraq.  Now, if the greens "honestly believed" this AND the reader/viewer is made to believe it as well, then sure, the greens would be portrayed as morally righteous.  But that doesn't make the narrative more "morally complex," it simply flips the narrative to the blacks being the villains.

Moreover, I do think show Alicent "honestly believes" her children are in danger if Rhaenyra takes the throne.  That's the entire point - Otto, herself, and Rhaenyra's actions deludes her into believing this.  

Indeed, the idea that doing the only thing guaranteed to make Rhaenyra to want to kill them is the thing that would save them from Rhaenyra's rage is absurd.

They are dragonriders, if they don't want to entertain treason no one was going to force them. It's the fact that they might/will entertain treason whichh puts them a target on their back... But that's entirely their fault.

 

Besides, they went about it the vilest way possible. They ought to have called a Great Council, not going to a civil war.

 

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

It also doesn't create textual evidence that she didn't. There was enough room within the breadth of of F&B the hypothesize on that or some other genuinely sympathetic reason, like a real concern for the realm if Rhaenyra ruled.

LOL, no. You cannot just take a book and assume or interpret along the lines that because something is missing it could have been there between the lines. The entire chapter 'Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession' builds up the Dance and gives us all the information the narrator thinks the readership will need to understand the subsequent war.

Gyldayn/George could have painted Rhaenyra as a bad potential ruler, could have pointed out how she didn't rule Dragonstone all that well (he does have some hints in that direction for Queen Rhaena's rule on Dragonstone), that she had mental problems, a Maegoresque personality, etc.

But there is just nothing of that sort there. At all.

Vice versa, it is crystal clear that none of Alicent's sons but Daeron was even remotely qualified to rule anything. Aegon is stupid and incompetent, petulant, greedy, and cruel. And Aemond is basically a sadistic psychopath, basically Maegor come again. No sane person caring for the well-being of the Realm would want either of those princes close to the throne. They are both much worse than Daemon.

10 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

In fact the show in its first five episodes sets that up. Until it decides to forgo whatever development happened before and run with a fairly uninteresting dynamic.

Actually, while the show drops the ball to actual depict how Alicent-Rhaenyra reached the point they are at at the beginning of episode 6, we certainly get a much better picture as to Alicent's motivation. It is not concern for her sons or daughter, nor a concern for the Realm ... it is her feeling of personal disappointment and hurt that causes her to turn against Rhaenyra.

She actually thought her friend would be a great queen and she sided with her against her own father and the claim of her young son. Rhaenyra was, originally, much more important to her than the Conqueror-Babe. Rhaenyra isn't aware, but Alicent truly was her best friend.

After the slutty thing she feels betrayed, feels to appear like a fool, believing in a woman, siding with her against her father and her son despite the fact that she wasn't worth it. This is, from her point of view, a deep betrayal. Rhaenyra betrayed Alicent, in her mind, but Alicent also betrayed herself and her family by siding with her.

That is actually a much better take on things than the evil stepmother trope or post-pregnancy looks being a relevant category in great politics.

10 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

No, they don't. Because even if Rhaenyra wasn't planning on sending the headsmen for them the day of her coronation, there was a reason to believe that the threat remained. It wouldn't happen on the first day of her reign, but given Rhaenyra's lack of capacity to rule, her marital relationship with Daemon, and her fraught relationship with Alicent, things could always have degraded. 

And foreseeing events and trying to stop them beforehand does much to add a layer of complexity to the Greens that makes them more than villains. Jealousy and Greed are just not that compelling, especially when we are given no reason to think why this or that character should feel this way.  

LOL, no. That's just in your head ... and nowhere to be seen on the pages of the book. These people were a family, and an inbred family at that. There were ways to resolve this. Irrational fear for your life doesn't justify preemptive succession wars or coups. If there was truly bad blood between Rhaenyra and her half-siblings there would have been ways to resolve this not involving murder - exile, for instance, the road Aenys took with Maegor, Rhaenyra could also have arranged or tried to arrange matches for Aemond or Daeron with the unwed Aliandra Martell of Dorne or one of her brothers. That way they would have been out of the Realm but in a position of power and prestige that could easily enough have led to a union with Dorne.

It is ludicrous to assume the relations of a future king can use 'I don't get along with them, I fear they might kill me' routine as a pretext to stage coups. That's literally Richard III's entire stick - and that was the most horrible of treasons, caused by decades of civil war and paranoia, to be sure, but completely uncalled for in this situation.

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

After the way that Alicent charged at Lucerys with the Conqueror's prophetic dagger and cut Rhaenyra damn near to the bone?

Nah, judging from the way that Rhaenyra was looking at her, I think that there is no chance that they could've been reconciled.

Rhaenyra first sees something in her old friend there she didn't see before ... but the way the lines are delivered I think there is also some kind of compassion or understanding beneath. Also in the way Alicent breaks down. She loses her composure not because this is her mortal enemy but because she was her dear friend and she is bloody disappointed in her.

Also, of course, Alicent is in part to be blamed for her own unhappiness and anger. She was the queen for a long time, and she could have taken a page or two out of Rhaenyra's book. But, no, she never took Rhaenyra's example as a pretext to approach Viserys to grant her leave to pursue her own happiness in their marriage after their duty to produce spare heirs for the throne was done.

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

From what I hear some crazy stuff is about to pop off in episode 8 and I think that there will be no hope of them working it out and becoming friends after episode 10.

Of course, the ship of reconciliation will finally sail far away in episode 10. But at this point and perhaps even after the original coup there would have been ways to settle things peacefully.

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I still don't like Otto. He's a self-interested, manipulative troublemaker who encourages and provokes people's worst impulses.

In fact, I liked him a lot more in the books to be honest.

In the book there isn't much character there. What I like about him in the show that he is so set in his ways that he might not even be admitting his own ambition to himself. He genuinely seems to believe he is acting in the best interest of the Realm. Of course, he is also a complete patriarch which means one hopes that Alicent will put him into his place eventually.

It is also clear he really liked Viserys and did not really dig up dirt or fabricate it to ruin her ... unlike with Daemon where he seems to have put the 'heir for a day' line deliberately in the worst light imaginable. Although, of course, he also gives the Daemon-Rhaenyra story a spin that claims Daemon and Rhaenyra had actually sex, when all Mysaria's spy had seen was them exiting a brothel.

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

I haven't seen Cobra Kai. But I feel like I know what you mean. Aemond will be to House of the Dragon what Walter White was to Breaking Bad?

I think that'd be nice to see a middle child who had been teased and pranked by his peers turn into a monstrous war criminal and traitor (I think that he planned to usurp Aegon II; the historians lied or didn't know) with zero regrets or qualms.

I like the TV version of Aemond a lot. But an underdog? Not really.

Aemond is introduced as the underdog of the royal princes. Aegon, Jace, and Luke are a gang of sorts, and they enjoy mocking dragonless Aemond.

In FaB, Aemond is perhaps the stupidest Targaryen we ever meet, completely ruled by ambition, pride, and completely unjustified arrogance. I'd like to see that toned down to a point, so that his solitary and, eventually, disastrous actually are made for a reason - namely, that he wants to set himself up as the new king.

We must still have Aemond being fooled by Daemon's Harrenhal ruse, of course, but Aemond can also deliberately weaken KL so he can sweep in on Vhagar to be the savior of the day should Rhaenyra ever attack the city, thus setting himself up as the true ruler of the Greens. One would also imagine that Alys Rivers is going to play the 'special destiny' card with Aemond.

10 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

They'd have to change the entire story of the Aemond-Luke confrontation at Storm's End to not make him look bad.

Well, I take that back. They can make it so that Cassandra Baratheon (a pretty important character if you are to ask me...) either meddles so much that the two find themselves at each other's throats or she actively deceives, manipulates or convinces Aemond into killing Luke.

I was more thinking about Luke just acting a little more like an ass at Storm's End, while Aemond is cordial and controlled until goaded into going after him. Of course, once he goes after him it will all look very bad, but it the guy wasn't *that eager* to avenge himself because of his eye it could work pretty well.

I so do hope season 2 starts with Aegon throwing that feast in Aemond's honor, with a stricken Alicent and a stone-faced Otto having to endure it all. That would so hammer home the fact that they don't really know what they are doing.

[Lord Varys]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Moreover, I do think show Alicent "honestly believes" her children are in danger if Rhaenyra takes the throne.  That's the entire point - Otto, herself, and Rhaenyra's actions deludes her into believing this.  

I actually don't think she buys that. She just uses it as a ploy to convince Aegon he should go along with their plans. He clearly is not interested in episode 6, so she really has to beat it into him or else their plan will never go off the ground. They cannot possibly crown a King Aegon II if Aegon himself weren't willing to take the crown ... or if they did then their new regime would collapse very quickly.

One imagines it will be somewhat worse in episode 9 when they actually stage the coup. Aegon is clearly not ready to take the crown or shoulder any responsibility at all. I must say I like how they play up Aegon as a precursor to Aegon IV there. There is also something of the Aegon-Naerys-Aemon dynamic in Aegon-Helaena-Aemond. Aegon IV would have been much smarter than Aegon II, true, but their appetites and inability to control their urges seem to be the same, and I think George kind of implies that Aegon II would have ended up like Aegon IV had he lived longer.

If Alicent truly believed she herself and/or her children were in danger from Rhaenyra she would have jumped on the Jace-Helaena idea. Because that could have helped to ensure their safety.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I actually don't think she buys that. She just uses it as a ploy to convince Aegon he should go along with their plans.

I think it's part and parcel of Alicent's shift in episode 5 - starting with Otto trying to convince her of such and her feelings of guilt for playing a part in his sacking.  It's obviously wrapped up in the feelings of betrayal and jealousy which the show has emphasized, but I think the introduction of that fear - particularly as she loses trust in Rhaenyra - is important.

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's part and parcel of Alicent's shift in episode 5 - starting with Otto trying to convince her of such and her feelings of guilt for playing a part in his sacking.  It's obviously wrapped up in the feelings of betrayal and jealousy which the show has emphasized, but I think the introduction of that fear - particularly as she loses trust in Rhaenyra - is important.

I don't buy it. Again, if she was afraid for them, she would push for marriages to keep them safe. She would have taken the Jace-Helaena offer, and, presumably, after Daemon's return and his eventual marriage to Rhaenyra she would have tried to marry Aegon and Aemond to Baela and Rhaena, respectively.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Testament to Emma D’Arcy’s acting talent: if you look at the content of Rhaenyra’s speech to Daemon at the end of EP7, it’s pretty cringe. It takes a strong actor to make up for that. 

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

She would have taken the Jace-Helaena offer, and, presumably, after Daemon's return and his eventual marriage to Rhaenyra she would have tried to marry Aegon and Aemond to Baela and Rhaena, respectively.

Not after a decade of increased distrust and jealousy.  Again, I'm not it's her primary motive, but I do think it's a factor.

[Theda Baratheon]

We have always been meant to burn together. 

 

Oof. What a line. 
 

loved this episode. 

[Theda Baratheon]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Testament to Emma D’Arcy’s acting talent: if you look at the content of Rhaenyra’s speech to Daemon at the end of EP7, it’s pretty cringe. It takes a strong actor to make up for that. 

I loved some of the dialogue. I don’t think it was cringe at all. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

The idea that Fire is a prison but the sea is freedom is pretty nonsensical once you start to think about it. More people in Westeros probably drown in the sea than die in a fire.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The idea that Fire is a prison but the sea is freedom is pretty nonsensical once you start to think about it.

I mean, the idea of exploring the sea as freeing is pretty well established in..life.  Doesn't mean it isn't still dangerous.  I didn't think the metaphor was any amazing writing by any stretch, but that part makes sense.

[Lord Varys]

Yes, the sea is a well-known metaphor for freedom, and it is actually quite fitting considering Laenor finds his freedom at sea. It is actually this talk that makes it clear the guy wasn't forced or strong-armed into leaving - one would imagine that he was all for it once Rhaenyra admitted she wanted to be with Daemon now.

Fire as a prison doesn't really work all that well, though. 'Burn together' is also a somewhat clumsy and ominous metaphor there - 'fly together' may have worked better, better still 'rule together'. I think the latter is what I expected to hear there.

In general, though, most of their voice-over scenes at the end of an episode feel clumsy and forced, beginning with Rhaenyra's investiture in the pilot, but also Larys' speech voice-over, and Rhaenyra's talk there.

I'm not sure they intended to do this, it seems to be a way to stitch scenes together that were written and shot to play out on their own, not as part of a voice-over montage.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

53 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

The idea that Fire is a prison but the sea is freedom is pretty nonsensical once you start to think about it.

Not for a sailor, though.

[The Bard of Banefort]

Huh, it occurs to me that we’ve now had three episodes in a row end with some kind of voiceover.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

Not after a decade of increased distrust and jealousy.  Again, I'm not it's her primary motive, but I do think it's a factor.

A factor, certainly, but more in the sense that they use this prospect as an argument to justify their own treasons, rather than it is something they actually deeply fear. If they did, they would really try to do something. Convince Viserys that this was a real danger, arrange marriages that would decrease the risk, have Aegon or Aemond join the Faith or the Citadel or the Kingsguard to weaken their claims and reduce the danger they allegedly pose to Rhaenyra, etc.

Instead, they just seem to use this 'danger' as a pretext to justify their own actions and atrocities.

Spoiler

And it seems that the guy who actually wants to kill members of the royal family is Otto in the end. Because according to the leaks his take on the coup is that it must include the preemptive murder of Rhaenyra, Daemon, and their children. That's what he is pushing for in episode 9, while Alicent insists they don't have to do this. She keeps the upper hand in the end.

I really feel the show is going to fuck with Otto in the sense that the coup and Aegon's coronation mean war because folks will not accept this and rise to defend Rhaenyra's claim, not, as he kept preaching, that they would not suffer her as queen. Aegon will also have followers, of course, but fewer than the Greens are expecting.

The crucial part of the war is that Aegon II's cause only gains momentum because of the coup and his coronation. Without that advantage it seems as if both in book and show very few or no people at all would have risen for Aegon II.

He is neither a popular super knight like Daemon Blackfyre, after all, nor (particularly) interested in the crown.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

A factor, certainly, but more in the sense that they use this prospect as an argument to justify their own treasons, rather than it is something they actually deeply fear. If they did, they would really try to do something. Convince Viserys that this was a real danger, arrange marriages that would decrease the risk, have Aegon or Aemond join the Faith or the Citadel or the Kingsguard to weaken their claims and reduce the danger they allegedly pose to Rhaenyra, etc.

Oh yeah, how "deeply" it is truly held is certainly questionable.  For Otto, not that deeply at all - if at all.  For Alicent though, my interpretation from the show is she's deluded herself (with Otto's prompting) into believing it is part of why she must prepare accordingly.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Oh yeah, how "deeply" it is truly held is certainly questionable.  For Otto, not that deeply at all - if at all.  For Alicent though, my interpretation from the show is she's deluded herself (with Otto's prompting) into believing it is part of why she must prepare accordingly.

I just think that Alicent real issue with Rhaenyra is that she feels betrayed by her and considers her as no longer worthy to be queen. Alicent feels this whore manipulated her into siding with her against her own father and children. She is not motivated by a desire for her own children like 'the evil stepmother' would.

It is more a personal issue between these two women, and not an issue where a mother acts in the (best) interests of her children or a daughter who wants to make her father - Otto - proud.

Of course, that's just how it seems to me at this point. If Alicent indicates that she genuinely fears for the lives of her children in the next two episodes, I'll reconsider my position there.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

I just think that Alicent real issue with Rhaenyra is that she feels betrayed by her and considers her as no longer worthy to be queen. Alicent feels this whore manipulated her into siding with her against her own father and children. She is not motivated by a desire for her own children like 'the evil stepmother' would.

Yeah, I agree this is her primary motivation, we're just nitpicking at this point.  One thing I will say is I don't view the fear of her children being killed by Rhaenyra as any type of "evil stepmother" trope.

[dsjj251]

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Here is the thing you and @dsjj251 don't get. 

The Greens starting the war does not preclude moral judgment based on their motivation. The Germans in WW1 were the first to mobilize their troops entering through Belgium, but if you were in the mind of the Kaiser and the war was thought inevitable this action would not be deemed as instigating a war but more so a preemptive attack.  

The same could be assumed of the Japanese during Pearl Harbor if they thought the US was going to enter the war regardless. 

As such we require a deeper understanding of the characters to see why the Greens would have reason to believe such a course should be taken. If the Greens believed the Blacks wanted them dead then seizing power would not clearly delineate good vs. bad. It would be morally ambiguous certainly, but such is a compelling narrative since waiting around like sitting ducks wouldn't be morally righteous.  

 

Yes, a lot of "ifs"

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

F&B does not determine one approach against the other. It allows room for us to hypothesize on what motivations Alicent might of had, especially in the personal animosity between her and Rhaenyra.

Cool, but that has nothing to do with your argument or mine. 

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

 

And as the latter did portray hints of jealousy, bitterness, and even violence it could have been further explored down a route that was somewhat interesting. 

Again, not once have you shown any of this.

Your best argument for Rhaenyra being violent would be of Daemon killing Vaemond. 

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Instead, as a change to the book, the show (in the last two episodes) clarifies that Rhaenyra would never harm the children beyond a reasonable doubt. It creates in Rhaenyra a more friendly disposition towards Alicent. It depicts Rhaenyra as being diplomatic and without the many flaws Gyldan's narrative bestows upon her. 

Again, give examples of these flaws you speak of.
 

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Which leaves Alicent with no motivation at all besides Jealousy or a lust for power. And instigating a war for either of those things removes any ability the audience may have to connect with her. For neither the jealousy or the determination for power were ever previously established as part of her psychology. The only reason we have to believe so is because there is no other possible reasoning behind her actions. 

Which is bad writing. 

You have a right to believe its bad writing, but that doesnt change anything. 

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

But I do. I gave reference to where Rhaenyra is shown to be jealous of Alicent. I gave reference to where Rhaenyra is depicted as bitter and unlikable. I gave reference to her lost of the moniker the realm's delight, and her retreat to Dragonstone (which was not necessary) away from her own court.  

Yes, you wrongly claimed she left for a reason that she did not.  As others said, she also didnt lose the nickname because she was now ugly( but even if she had been ugly, that doesnt make her jealous which is your other flaw)

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

You did none of that, instead you falsely misinterpret the book to say there is no animosity between Alicent and Rhaenyra when the entire premise of F&B is their rivalry. 

 

No, the terms "Blacks" and "Greens" are both used retroactively. im not saying they didnt hate each other before the war, im saying we never get an example of that in story. We can assume the Aemond eye incident counts , but what else ?????

 

 

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Which, even if you disagree with the book as written and decide upon your personal head canon that she was not, doesn't make it any more likely that the opposite is true which is what the show is doing, and as such going beyond the source material to demonize Alicent. 

No one is arguing the "Opposite", I simply said the book never shows Rhaenyra being jealous of Alicent, and here again, you claim the book says it does but does not give an example. I dont need a page number or an exact quote, just context to your claim, what situation in Fire and Blood makes you believe this ????

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Like @Lord Varys you think because the Greens struck first their motivations don't matter automatically turning them into the villain. But as I said to Varys, their motivations affect how viewers can understand and comprehend these characters and their morals. Something that F&B permitted us to hypothesize about without ever indulging the true psychological rational behind it. 

The show, going further than books, leaves us with the exclusive perception that it was done for two highly irrational reasons leaving the greens with no morality worth discussing, proving them to be evil without much nuance. 

Ok, i didnt clarify this earlier, but I need to now 

Show motivation : Hubert wants Aegon on the thrown and convinces Otto of the same, Otto then scares Alicent into believing Rhaenyra will kill her children. 

Book motivation : We dont actually get one, the dialogue we here in the show is pretty much what will be said at the Green Council, but it isnt said  in book until that moment. And even then, it reads more as justifications rather than reasoning. The Ageon window scene in show is pretty much the same as  what we get in the book right after Viserys dies . Aegon and Aemond in the next episode both refer to Helaena as a his future queen, not wife.

And Yes, the death of Luke makes them villains, 100% , because even in that moment, Luke clearly isnt there to kill Aemond, who is already a traitor. 

 

19 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

And as I said before and again, F&B does not go nearly as far as these last two episodes. F&B indulged into serious criticism of Rhaenyra's character and left room to hypothesize on Alicent's motivation. 

The show as of recent has gone beyond the book by adding detailed personalities which leaves nothing else to be determined. And what we have is a generic villains vs. heroes plot which hurts the format of the narrative which is by its nature duel perspective. 

 

This is an example of you saying something exists in the book, but not actually giving an example. I dont need you to quote the exact line word for word, I just need an actual example so we can compare notes , thats it. 

[Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe]

On 10/7/2022 at 11:53 AM, slant said:

! I posted about it also earlier in the thread! 

I’ll do some digging and put forth an idea