Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 108 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

Just like “give Deamon cool dialogue,” which they also decide to never do. Well,  I understand their decision to never have white male characters be cool, so maybe it’s that.

....Er, what?  You don' think the show has made Daemon sufficiently badass?  They devoted a huge set piece to him winning the Stepstones virtually by himself.  Then there's Aemond, who other than the toast has actually been depicted as entirely sympathetic AND a badass.  While we don't see much of him, Harwin is pretty damn cool and gets to go in terminator mode when Cole is decimating Joffrey's face.  Your assertion here is empirically wrong.

1 hour ago, Happy Ent said:

Every male white straight character must be debased, must be shown as brutal, incompetent, or morally sick. Anything else (in particular, the mere depiction of knightly virtues such as integrity, character, strength, compassion, virtue)  would be morally corrupt storytelling since the very story would further support the Western male narrative that currently stands in the way of progress.

LOL, as other have intimated, this is entirely projection on your part and you're living in your own fantasy world.  The show isn't interjecting ideology, you are.

2 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

It's that we should care one way or another what happens to him, in the same way you care when Janos Slynt is sent to the wall or executed, even though he is a very minor character in the grand scheme of things.

Honestly I don't see how Janos is more developed in GoT than Vaemond is in HotD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

They give him about as much development as he needs. 

A tertiary character with a minute to shine. The character on itself is inmaterial, what's important is what the Hightowers plan on doing with Vaemond. Nothing more, nothing less.

But a character like Vaemond could be material - that's the point. GoT Viserys could have been just a tertiary character with a minute to shine, a plot device to get Dany married to Drogo and laden with some dragon eggs, but instead he's not. Which then means he has real effects on other characters, even though his overall role is negligible. This is one of the things that makes ASoiAF and GoT such an incredible series.

Vaemond could have been more than a plot device, whose death would then have serious effects on other characters, like Corlys and Rhaenys. But he's another wasted opportunity, alongside Rhea Royce, the Crabfeeder, Laena, Laenor, Joffrey, Harwin and Lyonel, etc... When every character but three or four in your first season is reduced to plot devices, it's really hard to get invested or care when they suddenly get involved in the plot or die. I was bored to tears throughout the first forty minutes of the episode, with its never ending cocktail of exposition and a conflict surrounding characters I'm not invested in (Luke and Vaemond). The problem is the writers want to have their cake and eat it too: they want these characters (like Laena, to take another example) to get BIG DEATH MOMENTS THAT FEEL SIGNIFICANT. But they don't want to put in the character writing to earn that significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

But a character like Vaemond could be material - that's the point.

But he could never, he serves no other purpose than binding Rhaenyra and Rhaenys, he perfectly fullfils that role.

 

19 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

GoT Viserys could have been just a tertiary character with a minute to shine, a plot device to get Dany married to Drogo and laden with some dragon eggs, but instead he's not.

Viserys is Dany's only brother, he's protector and abuser. Both in show and books, he's important to her development before and after she dies. Viserys is vital in Dany's character arc.

Vaemond... isn't. He's just a roadblock.  Could the showrunners expand more with him? Sure but for what?

I'm sorry but you keep comparing Vaemond to Viserys and it's an absurd comparison.

Sure there are characters that would have greatly benefitted from more screen time, neither Vaemond nor Rhea are those characters however in my opinion, in Rhea's case given what she got I'm wondering if it was a good idea that she apeared at all.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

I was bored to tears throughout the first forty minutes of the episode, with its never ending cocktail of exposition and a conflict surrounding characters I'm not invested in (Luke and Vaemond).

Fair enough, I loved the episode in its entirety.

 

19 minutes ago, Caligula_K3 said:

The problem is the writers want to have their cake and eat it too: they want these characters (like Laena, to take another example) to get BIG DEATH MOMENTS THAT FEEL SIGNIFICANT. But they don't want to put in the character writing to earn that significance.

Agree and disagree here.

I was moved by Laena's death and Aemma's even with the little screentime they had. I did not care for Joffrey. Harwin and Lyonel left me craving for more.

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I haven't read the pseudo history fantasy book a/k/a F&B -- or is it B&F? -- but there is a  great big reason Alicent is misinterpreting King V's final words -- great great big big -- because this thing called Dance of the Dragons for control of the Targaryan throne is model on Real History, and that's how the Anarchy begins. As I write on the non spoiler thread: It begins on Henry I's death bed, in his final moments.  I'll cut and and paste from that thread:

Quote

 

Funny, so many viewers reactions to Alicent's reaction to what appear to be King V's final words, that he's saying Aegon's his only child and it is through him something something something -- why must her treason to the rightful named heir Rhaenyra be shown as provoked by this?

Come on, small folk!  This is how the writers attempted to incorporate the historic circumstances of Stephen de Blois and his mother usurping Henry I's throne, stealing it from Empress Matilda.  It was a twofer, too: it got that ret-conned prophecy of the Prince Who Is Promised in there.  Nothing at all obscure in the choices of the writers for this scene.

Though I personally find the oddness of all this in the reversal of the historical template for this: Henry I was the effectual, strong king, while Stephen's character was like that of King V; the reversal also of Stephen driven by his mother, while Alicent is driven by her father.

Whether or not this works or was the writers' right choice in the eyes of the objecting viewers doesn't matter in this case: they had to do this.

 

 Since GRRM is going for the Anarchy he had to have this precepitating lie in his Dance history for historical verisimilitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Both Corlys and Rhaenys are on team black in F&B, though. Initially, at least.

Of course, but it is a stretch to assume that they are keen doing that - and keeping Rhaenyra's sons as heirs - if they believe Rhaenyra and Daemon had Laenor murdered. It the book we can pretend they knew/believed they had nothing to do with that ... but in the show we know they do believe they were involved. That is an issue.

The show also did literally nothing to establish that the Velaryons - or Rhaenys, specifically - loathe or do not like Alicent or Otto Hightower. Rhaenys likely was quietly grateful that Viserys did not marry Laena, considering she didn't approve of Corlys' royal ambitions. So why the hell are the Velaryons not potential Green allies? Vaemond was, but Corlys/Rhaenys could easily have been Vaemond there if they actually believed that Rhaenyra and Daemon murdered their son.

1 hour ago, Stenkarazine said:

Can't they somehow merge Daeron's actions into Aemond's, and have the latter fly on his dragon (ie. at the speed of the plot) from the Riverlands to the Reach just in time for the battle of Honeywine, do all the slaughter there is to do in the Reach (ie. Bitterbridge)... then leave (for instance because he got wind of Daemon's whereabouts) just before the second battle of Tumbleton, to go back to the Riverlands and die there ?

I mean of course I would be saddened if they leave Daeron out, but it seems more or less doable plot-wise.

They would have to make significant adjustments, considering Aemond's plot is actually one of royal ambition. He rules as Prince Regent, sitting on the Iron Throne (presumably), even taking the Conqueror's crown from Aegon II and wearing it himself.

If Aemond were to fly back and forth between the Reach and the Riverlands - which certainly would be doable, logistically, thanks to his dragons - he could not also run the government of the Realm. It would also rob the Green court of all male Targaryens, since Aegon II should be incapacitated after Rook's Rest.

On the Black side something like that is much easier - they have lots of dragonriders and generals which could be swapped if the writers feel like it, especially since they are most likely going to show Rhaenyra in a more active role ... meaning she will fly to war on Syrax on more than one occasion.

Anyway, George did confirm that Daeron is in:

https://georgerrmartin.com/notablog/2022/10/11/random-musings/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The quote in question:

Quote

Do I wish we’d had more time to explore the relationship between Rhaenyra and Ser Harwin, the marriage of Daemon and Laena and their time in Pentos, the birth of various and sundry children (and YES, Alicent gave Viserys four children, three sons and a daughter, their youngest son Daeron is down in Oldtown, we just did not have the time to work him in this season), and everything else we had to skip?   Sure.

Not a confirmation that they will namedrop him next week - although that got even more likely now -, but a confirmation that he wasn't cut and will be in the next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m wracking my brain over how they’re going to make the Dance last four seasons. I guess they could give a few episodes to the Regency, but they’ve made Aegon absurdly young and I doubt they’d be willing to kill off Rhaenyra prior to the last season. As it is, this show hinges on Matt Smith more than GOT did on Sean Bean. Once he and Aemond die, the show’s success will rest on two mad queens and Corlys Velaryon.

That said, if HOTD’s success* has taught me anything, it’s that franchises don’t really die anymore. Maybe that’ll change in a generation, but it looks like any IP is fair game for a successful reboot/spin-off these days.

*Granted, I don’t think HOTD is quite as big as HBO claims it is. The Nielsen ratings for the premiere were a lot lower than what they were promoting, and if they’re willing to inflate their subscriber numbers for investors—which they’re now being sued for—then I don’t think it’s that crazy to think they’d exaggerate other data too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the Dance of the Dragons page at the wiki. We'll be at 2.5 at the end of the season, leaving 21 distinct entries. Even if we just assume an extremely straightforward adaptation, with 7 events covered each subsequent season, you'd get something like Season 2 containing Rook's Rest and the Battle of the Gullet, Season 3 getting through the Fishfeed, the Butcher's Ball, First Tumbleton, and the Fall of Dragonstone, and Season 4 taking us through the Battle Above the God's Eye, the Dragonpit, Second Tumbleton, and the deaths of various claimants. They could perhaps do the Hour of the Wolf, but they don't have to -- enough to end with the death of the king and the clear indicator that the succession will go to Aegon.

Obviously, they will likely shuffle some things around but it is pretty workable. Season 2 should focus a lot on the maneuverings to win allies plus the finding of the Dragonseeds, IMO.

 

ETA: Of course it's unlikley we're going to get three major battles depicted in a single season, so some stuff will have to occur off screen. Still, _lots_ of action going on and then weave together various things from KL and Dragonstone...

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ran said:

See the Dance of the Dragons page at the wiki. We'll be at 2.5 at the end of the season, leaving 21 distinct entries. Even if we just assume an extremely straightforward adaptation, with 7 events covered each subsequent season, you'd get something like Season 2 containing Rook's Rest and the Battle of the Gullet, Season 3 getting through the Fishfeed, the Butcher's Ball, First Tumbleton, and the Fall of Dragonstone, and Season 4 taking us through the Battle Above the God's Eye, the Dragonpit, Second Tumbleton, and the deaths of various claimants. They could perhaps do the Hour of the Wolf, but they don't have to -- enough to end with the death of the king and the clear indicator that the succession will go to Aegon.

Obviously, they will likely shuffle some things around but it is pretty workable. Season 2 should focus a lot on the maneuverings to win allies plus the finding of the Dragonseeds, IMO.

 

ETA: Of course it's unlikley we're going to get three major battles depicted in a single season, so some stuff will have to occur off screen. Still, _lots_ of action going on and then weave together various things from KL and Dragonstone...

I wonder what they’re going to do with Viserys II. If they are going to end with Aegon’s child version taking the throne and let the audience think he died.

It would be cool to see them meeting again years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can also take this quote

Quote

It is going to take four full seasons of 10 episodes each to do justice to the Dance of the Dragons, from start to finish.

as a kind of tentative confirmation that the Dance proper will covered in four rather than three seasons, meaning we could go with a preliminary setting of season 2 culminating with Rook's Rest rather than the fall of KL (although it would allow to shuffle other battles around, like the Honeywine and various battles in the Riverlands), season 3 could then end with Rhaenyra's ascension, season 4 with the Storming of the Dragonpit and the Battle Above the Gods Eye, and season 5 with Aegon II's death and Aegon III's coronation (or however far into Regency material they want to go).

Seasons 2 & 3 could gain more traction by them adding more material for the Baratheons/Stormlanders, and a detailed depiction of the Ironborn raids in the Westerlands. Rhaenyra completely ignoring the Baratheon involvement in the death of Luke always seemed like a glaring oversight.

One would also hope that they might add some more fighting in the Vale and the North - thanks to Daemon murdering Rhea the Royces could go Green, for instance -, and we could get also get some Green Northmen (the Boltons or Dustins, say).

If we add the fact that more time must pass they could take things really slowly by depicting various lords paramount having to deal with rebellious bannermen declaring for the other faction as a necessary precursor for the actual succession war. In the book we only get that in the Riverlands with the Bracken-Blackwood feud and the Hightower army slowly grinding down the Black Reach lords. But something like that should happen in the other regions as well - quite interesting there could also be the Westerlands prior to the Ironborn invasion (the Marbrands, for instance, could stand with Rhaenyra due to Lorent Marbrand being a Black Queensguard).

2 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I’m wracking my brain over how they’re going to make the Dance last four seasons. I guess they could give a few episodes to the Regency, but they’ve made Aegon absurdly young and I doubt they’d be willing to kill off Rhaenyra prior to the last season. As it is, this show hinges on Matt Smith more than GOT did on Sean Bean. Once he and Aemond die, the show’s success will rest on two mad queens and Corlys Velaryon.

I think my outline above could easily enough work with a Dance lasting four seasons. Three would mean things are far too tense, and they could not really proper introduce and portray secondary and tertiary characters. I mean, Hugh and Ulf would be basically vile traitors five minutes after they have been introduced

I'd agree that Rhaenyra would only die in the last season, with her death possibly being moved closer to the finish line. They could easily enough take both Rhaenyra and Aegon hostage, with Rhaenyra dying only later. Although as I wrote above ... I'd not be surprised at all if Rhaenyra actually got another fake death scene like Laenor in the show and Mance Rayder in the book. In her case it might even be easier doable than in Laenor's case, if they were going with a scenario where she is first imprisoned.

As I said above somewhere, an aging Rhaenyra sitting in front of Braavosi manse with a red door, reading a letter from Viserys about Daeron's Conquest of Dorne could be a pretty good ending for her ... and a great 'Fuck you!' to the GoT finale...

Daemon's exit from the show should be at/close to the end of season 4 in a season 5 plan.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

Season 2 should focus a lot on the maneuverings to win allies plus the finding of the Dragonseeds, IMO.

The finding of the dragonseeds could be a continuous process, stretching throughout season 2 and early season 3. And as I said earlier, they have to do something with Rhaena. She is hungry for a dragon, and much older than in the book. There is no way she is not going to claim one of the riderless dragons. It is actually kind of weird that nobody calls on her to mount one of them in the book. Sure, she is in the Vale when the Sowing begins, but that's not really a good excuse. They know they have spare dragons on Dragonstone from the start, meaning Rhaena should have gotten permission to, say, mount Silverwing or Vermithor and Seasmoke before it was even considered sending her to the Vale with Joffrey.

There are also the assassinations to consider. There might be some buildup for Blood and Cheese, and they might cover its aftermath in great detail. Erryk and Arryk should also not just be characters who pop up for a couple of episodes. They could revamp it into an infiltration-assassination, with Criston originally having Arryk infiltrate Dragonstone, knocking out his twin and putting him into a cell, so he could take over his role completely and pass on the plans of the Blacks.

The unravelling of that plot could also include the death of Harrold Westerling if the guy were to live and end up in the Black camp.

But in general it should take multiple episode to really properly establish who declared for who and to establish the various fronts and campaigns in the war. I think we will have more dragonriders, especially in the Black camp, flying to visit with various lords and armies to properly establishing the characters there. Jace and Baela would be ideal candidates for this kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leticia Stark said:

I wonder what they’re going to do with Viserys II. If they are going to end with Aegon’s child version taking the throne and let the audience think he died.

It would be cool to see them meeting again years later.

They could include a time jump before the last episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it isn't. The only hint into that direction is the fact that they bathe together ... but that's not all *that* unusual in a medieval contexts, and much less so if we talk close relations.

I said destroyed, not murdered. I meant ruined, causing their child to grow up as the prostitute-criminal she is in the book.

Viserys is allegedly the father of the bastard pretender Trystane Truefyre in the book, so we have to imagine he was at least seen as both willing and capable to cheat on Alicent.

If they were to fly with that the way to introduce it would also be to have it early in the ten years gap, possibly while Alicent was away for a longer period of time and the woman in question was Viserys' replacement nurse.

Again, makes no sense for Daemon to be abandoning his family to spend most of his time with this commoner girl out of "paternal feelings" when he barely has all that much of those about his own children to begin with. And I don't know about book Viserys, but show Viserys is clearly way too sick to be having affairs and showed no inclination to that even when he was in better health.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like people want Nettles to be Daemon’s daughter because they don’t want to admit that he’s the type of person who would abandon the wife he groomed from childhood to shack up with another child. It makes you feel terrible for Rhaenyra, but that’s who Daemon is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Again, makes no sense for Daemon to be abandoning his family to spend most of his time with this commoner girl out of "paternal feelings" when he barely has all that much of those about his own children to begin with. And I don't know about book Viserys, but show Viserys is clearly way too sick to be having affairs and showed no inclination to that even when he was in better health.

 

Exactly, that’s the only reason why I don’t believe he survived. He wouldn’t abandon his sons and daughters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I feel like people want Nettles to be Daemon’s daughter because they don’t want to admit that he’s the type of person who would abandon the wife he groomed from childhood to shack up with another child. It makes you feel terrible for Rhaenyra, but that’s who Daemon is.

I mean more that Daemon is the kind of guy to commit suicide by cop over his young mistress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We can also take this quote

Quote

It is going to take four full seasons of 10 episodes each to do justice to the Dance of the Dragons, from start to finish.

as a kind of tentative confirmation that the Dance proper will covered in four rather than three seasons

On first reading that quote I assumed he was counting season 1, and thus four seasons total.  But reading it again, you could be right, maybe he meant four seasons after season 1, and thus five total?  I think the latter is pushing it a bit, considering where they're already at - unless as you mentioned they spend a good chunk of the final season on the denouement/regency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DMC said:

On first reading that quote I assumed he was counting season 1, and thus four seasons total.  But reading it again, you could be right, maybe he meant four seasons after season 1, and thus five total?  I think the latter is pushing it a bit, considering where they're already at - unless as you mentioned they spend a good chunk of the final season on the denouement/regency.

Sapochnik and Condal have a tenative 4 season plan for the whole show. In fact I think they may have floated three as well? But four seems more certain.

Five seasons total, I find that one tougher to wrap my head around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But yes, HBO wanted to start with the Dance of the Dragons but George Martin insisted on otherwise with others supporting him. They really-really wanted to skip past all of this character building to get to the "good" stuff in the Civil War despite the fact that the actual Dance is pretty compared to all of the twists and turns as well as politicking that precedes it in the first twenty years.

Really, they should have done the Dance in one season and three seasons of this season's contents.

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...