Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 108 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

I always thought it would be more interesting however unlikely that Nettles didn’t actually have Valyrian blood and just managed to bond with Sheepstealer by feeding it every day and gaining its trust. 
I never thought Dameon was her literal Dad at least. Though I definitely got a father/daughter type of vibe from their relationship. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

I'd say that Nettles being Daemon's daughter makes for a more interesting story.

I agree.

I was considering the possibility, within the show, of Nettles mother being the serving Wench who offered a cup to Aegon. the significance of the scene i am still questioning. 
Aegon takes a cup and replaces with another. Claps twice. Helaena claps spider. Larys drinks 

The age would not fit but I like that It would be Daemon having children with all three factions, families? If he ended up sleeping with her.

Edited by Fool Stands On Giant’s Toe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ran said:

The mother could have Targaryen blood from some past Dragonseed. She could be a descendant of Gaemon the Glorious for all we know. Nothing requires a Dragonseed's blood to be from a recent generation, after all.

There must be a point where there relationship is too distant for the trick to work, isn't there? An ancestor from 10 generations ago give you less than 1 per thousand of "Targaryen blood".

It's also a commonly held assumption that the dragonlords practiced polygamy incest in order to keep their bloodlines pure and thus falicitating the bond with their dragons. That wouldn't make sense if having any single Targ ancestor could be enough.

9 hours ago, Ran said:

Ulf the White and Hugh Hammer certainly didn't have recent Targaryen blood.

Why do you think so? I've always believed that Ulf and Hugh should have a relatively close relationship with the main Targ branch. They are both pale-haired (a trait that many 50% Targ children didn't inherit).

I don't see why they couldn't be first-generation seeds (why couldn't one of them could be the son of, let's say Baelon) or second-generation (for example from Corwyn, Jorgen or Victor Velaryon).

9 hours ago, Ran said:

Does it? The text implies his return and the six months before his exile were all in 111 (since after he departs, we're told of things that proceeded to happen in 112 AC rather than "that same year"). Then we're told he returned to the Stepstones, so what's the evidence that he was at Driftmark? I'm not saying he couldn't have gone there first, but... there's no evidence of it, is there? Hell, he was exiled from the Seven Kingdoms proper, which includes Driftmark...

In any case, we're told Nettles was born in 113 AC. Wouldn't that be a long pregnancy?

Yeah, I could have been more accurate here. You are right that there's no evidence of Daemon being at Driftmark, but we know that the Stepstones campaign was headquartered from Driftmark. And it doesn't seem that he took the "exile from the Seven Kingdoms that seriously, as he flew to the Vale immediately after Rhea's death and then went to Driftmark to meet Laena.

So I'll rephrase my point: it's not far fetched to say that Daemon could have been around Nettles mother at the time she was conceived. Either because he paid some visits to Driftmark, or because a dockside whore from the island could have easily become a camp followere in the Stepstones during that campaign.

Edited by The hairy bear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@butterweedstrover

You keep conflating Daemon's popularity on social media with the show somehow whitewashing him - just check out the longstanding popularity of straight up asshole characters like Walter White from Breaking Bad, the Roy family - especially the men - from succession, Don Draper from Mad Men, Jaime Lannister and on and on.  There are plenty of people who watch shows casually and appreciate characters because of the actor's charisma. There are also plenty of people who interpret a character's shitty actions as being badass and cool. This is evident with the sheer hatred many fans had for Skyler White and their corresponding sympathy for Walt while he was gaslighting her, bullying her, killing people and putting the entire family at risk. The creator of the show himself admitted to being taken aback because his intention was to portray Walt as a monster by the end. Yet, online reactions were largely the opposite. So no, you can't just claim the writers are trying to absolve Daemon of all his crimes - they cannot control how viewers will react, is the point. 

Also, Aemond seemed to gain a massive following on social media after the last episode; how does this fit into your theory of the writers portraying him as an evil, murderous bully? You say writers' intent and portrayal = fandom popularity. In this case, shouldn't Aemond be hated by most fans rather than the opposite? Instead, every other post on Reddit since last week is about how cool he is. 

It's also interesting comparing your views about Daemon with another poster who claims white straight men never get any cool scenes or dialogue anymore because TPTB are apparently weighed down by an oppressive woke agenda. And yet the list of characters I mentioned above are ALL straight white men, lol.

It's like people are watching entirely different shows. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Crixus said:

@butterweedstrover

You keep conflating Daemon's popularity on social media with the show somehow whitewashing him - just check out the longstanding popularity of straight up asshole characters like Walter White from Breaking Bad, the Roy family - especially the men - from succession, Don Draper from Mad Men, Jaime Lannister and on and on.  There are plenty of people who watch shows casually and appreciate characters because of the actor's charisma. There are also plenty of people who interpret a character's shitty actions as being badass and cool. This is evident with the sheer hatred many fans had for Skyler White and their corresponding sympathy for Walt while he was gaslighting her, bullying her, killing people and putting the entire family at risk. The creator of the show himself admitted to being taken aback because his intention was to portray Walt as a monster by the end. Yet, online reactions were largely the opposite. So no, you can't just claim the writers are trying to absolve Daemon of all his crimes - they cannot control how viewers will react, is the point. 

Also, Aemond seemed to gain a massive following on social media after the last episode; how does this fit into your theory of the writers portraying him as an evil, murderous bully? You say writers' intent and portrayal = fandom popularity. In this case, shouldn't Aemond be hated by most fans rather than the opposite? Instead, every other post on Reddit since last week is about how cool he is. 

It's also interesting comparing your views about Daemon with another poster who claims white straight men never get any cool scenes or dialogue anymore because TPTB are apparently weighed down by an oppressive woke agenda. And yet the list of characters I mentioned above are ALL straight white men, lol.

It's like people are watching entirely different shows. 

 

 

Crixus, my fair gladiator, I have extensively argued why I believe Daemon’s crimes are portrayed as superficial by the show. 

Referencing the response on social media was just additional evidence as to bolster my main argument. 

Feel free to respond to that, otherwise I don’t see what good repeating myself would do. You’re right that if social media engagement was the core of my argument it would be flimsy, but it’s not. 

As an aside, a user (DMC) challenged me on several points to which my replies can offer further insight (of which he couldn’t rebut which I take to mean is him conceding that I was right).

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Crixus, my fair gladiator, I have extensively argued why I believe Daemon’s crimes are portrayed as superficial by the show.

I've read your argument and it's "because Daemon didn't kill popular beloved characters but only characters the audience isn't particularly attached to, that means the show is trying to present him as a goodie-goodie." I am very curious what exactly you think they should have changed to portray Daemon the way you want.

Because it seems like they want to portray him as a ruthless man but with redeming qualities, which is how he's in the book.

I admit, though, I think they're way too whitewashing on the Greens and need to up their evil significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2022 at 3:50 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That was an interesting episode.  A peace undone by asshole kids and a King addled by Milk of the Poppy.  

Did Viserys have leprosy? It certainly looked like he did.

Apparently Cosidine said in an interview somewhere he does and I'm assuming that comes from the script.

Interesting that the episode ended as it did. Presumably that was Viserys' last breath, but I thought he'd be dying in the last episode of the season. Very interesting. I've only just caught up so are we currently missing Aegon's and Helaena's children?

I also thought, given her obsession with spiders, they were going to have Helaena be the one poison Viserys as my recollection was that she was the last to visit him in the books.

Watched the preview for next week which looks interesting, I was trying to place the scenes and couldn't place many of them based on what I recall from the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, butterweedstrover said:

Crixus, my fair gladiator, I have extensively argued why I believe Daemon’s crimes are portrayed as superficial by the show. 

Referencing the response on social media was just additional evidence as to bolster my main argument. 

Feel free to respond to that, otherwise I don’t see what good repeating myself would do. You’re right that if social media engagement was the core of my argument it would be flimsy, but it’s not. 

As an aside, a user (DMC) challenged me on several points to which my replies can offer further insight (of which he couldn’t rebut which I take to mean is him conceding that I was right).

People passionately defend Walter White on social media and argue that he was a good man at heart, but I'm quite sure that's not what Vince Gilligan was aiming for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I've read your argument and it's "because Daemon didn't kill popular beloved characters but only characters the audience isn't particularly attached to, that means the show is trying to present him as a goodie-goodie." I am very curious what exactly you think they should have changed to portray Daemon the way you want.

Because it seems like they want to portray him as a ruthless man but with redeming qualities, which is how he's in the book.

I admit, though, I think they're way too whitewashing on the Greens and need to up their evil significantly.

I went further than that actually. His crimes do not have any emotional or political consequences, as well as the fact that they are instigated by people who provide him some sort of personal motivation that allows people to go “lol, so toxic”. 
 

For example, while I have other problems with Vaemond’s murder (like how Rhaenyra is freed of any culpability) they couldn’t leave it at simply him calling her children bastards (which is a statement of fact). 
 

They had to bring him to call Rhaenyra a whore giving Daemon this feminist slant of defending his woman. Audiences are made to cheer rather than feel conflicted, which gets to the core of my issue with the showrunners. They want to cushion everything to skew the popularity and keep a moral dividing line between the good guys and bad guys. 
 

Rhea, who was killed more to show off Daemon’s capacity for violence, couldn’t just be left vulnerable, she has to insult his manhood and dare him to follow through. It all just goes to soften the blow so that when Daemon is converted to the good side people can look back on these crimes with, not horror, but a superficial understanding of his abilities which will be used in aid of Saint Rhaenyra and co.

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SeanF said:

People passionately defend Walter White on social media and argue that he was a good man at heart, but I'm quite sure that's not what Vince Gilligan was aiming for.

Putting aside how I think Vince made a few missteps in playing up WW badass nature and his all around (unearned) heroic death, Daemon’s crimes don’t haunt him or his character like they do Walter’s. 
 

Walt at least has to deal with the damage he has caused. Daemon just smoothly transitions from resident baddy to the loyal brother helping Viserys to the throne and wacking the guy who called his daughter a whore.

We celebrate his awfulness as a tool the good guys can use to even the playing field, which is one of the problems with splitting the sides into clear cut good vs. evil. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/9/2022 at 10:50 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That was an interesting episode.  A peace undone by asshole kids and a King addled by Milk of the Poppy.  

Did Viserys have leprosy? It certainly looked like he did.

Viserys doing his best King Baldwin IV act. Hes had "something" since the start of the show. Patches of rot on his body the maesters couldnt heal. In the end it looked a lot like leprosy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Chad Vader said:

The actor who plays Aemond was in The Last Kingdom on Netflix. He plays King Alfreds bastard and is the complete opposite of his character on HoD. I like his HoD character a lot more.

Apparently, he was born in 2002, which would make him seven (!) years younger than Aegon's actor Tom Glynn-Carney, even though he looks older than him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what I’d heard of their career, I had expected Aemma D’Arcy to blow everyone out of the water. But I have to say, while Emma has been consistently good, Olivia has upstaged them at every turn. Her performance has just been so much more visceral and captivating than Emma’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Alicent seems to have let go of a lot of her anger and resentment towards Rhaenyra by EP8, perhaps because her slashing Rhaenyra with the dagger may have actually provided her with the catharsis she needed.

 

Did Jon kill Dany with the catspaw dagger? I didn’t think he did, but I could be wrong.

In After The Episode they actually explain Alicent went more religious because she used her religion to feel less guilty of the fact she hurt Rhaenyra. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Based on what I’d heard of their career, I had expected Aemma D’Arcy to blow everyone out of the water. But I have to say, while Emma has been consistently good, Olivia has upstaged them at every turn. Her performance has just been so much more visceral and captivating than Emma’s.

Be sure to keep in mind that the acting is heavily dependent on what all the characters are doing or presented with at the time.

Olivia Cooke's character has had to do and deal with a lot. Look at all of the characters and plotlines moving about in Alicent Hightower's orbit: Aegon, Helaena, Aemond, Viserys, Otto, Larys, Criston, Vaemond, Rhaenyra. All of the people within Alicent's orbit are well developed and three-dimensional.

 

Emma d'Arcy will be blowing people out of the water in no time. But at this point in the story, Rhaenyra doesn't do much apart from reacting to suspicions and accusations. It was like that in the book...as we are leading up to all-out war, the Greens are the ones who actually take action seeing that they cause the war and almost all of the lead up events. Whereas, for the while, the Blacks are just reacting.

Ever since Laena died, Matt Smith has only had a handful of lines per episode. That should change once the war begins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't think I'd describe someone in chronic pain legitimately in need of sedatives as a "drug addict," but yeah, entirely agree with the rest.  Again, Alicent and Otto should not be blamed for properly medicating Viserys.  It's how they take advantage of that that's the problem.

I meant to say that he was so dependent on the milk of the poppy that it addled his mind. He is not demented or confused because of age and sickness, but by the drug/medicine he is dependent on.

As we see later on when his mind is clear after he refused to take it for a day.

12 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

I mean Alicent has already covered up the murder of Harwin Strong and his father.

And now covers up for her son's rapes.

She's "nuanced" but already crossed the Moral Event Horizon.

Well, I think she is actually kind of afraid of Larys Strong, no? And she rightfully fears that if she were to rat him out he would take her down with her, claiming he did kill his father and brother (with whom he had no quarrel at all) on the specific command of the queen who was threatening to kill/ruin him if he weren't to comply.

Covering Aegon's rape seems to have to do only with her moral standards, not with it being perceived as a big crime.

To be honest, it is almost comical to see Alicent giving a shit about that - this is the show where the bodyguard of the king can butcher the lover of the future prince consort in front of everybody, facing no consequences at all ... just as Daemon can murder a nobleman in front of the king, and tourney knights can butcher each other in defiance of chivalric conduct, the rules of the game, and good taste.

But we are to believe that the royal family do care about the well-being of their own servants?

12 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

Did anyone else notice how Rhaena had to hold Baela back when the boys started fighting?

I can't wait to see what they are going to do with those two girls. Particularly Baela. If they were smart, they would make

  Reveal hidden contents

The fall of Dragonstone more of a legitimate battle that the Blacks lose instead of another silly coup.

Oh, and the lead-up to the big battle on Dragonstone. It should be a little "murder mystery" whodunnit subplot simmering in the background...

I'm sure the girls will play a (much) bigger role in the show than the book. They already do. They might even feel obliged or forced to give one of the riderless dragons to Rhaena now, since she is so desperate for a dragon. In the book this not happening is odd, too, but kind of explained by the fact that Rhaena is already in the Vale by the time Jace calls for dragonseeds to try to claim the riderless dragons.

In the show, though, Rhaena should have first choice of the riderless dragons. In fact, she should already ride one of them in the wake of Aemond stealing Vhagar. She lived on Dragonstone for six years now, surrounded by a bunch of riderless dragons.

12 hours ago, BlackLightning said:

While I do think that Daemon's suicide mission was both stupid and egregiously damaging to the Blacks, I have to disagree on the point of killing Aemond.

Aemond is an expert dragonrider (who also happens to command the world's largest and most powerful dragon) and he's the fiercest/best warrior that the Greens have. He cannot be left alone to his own devices...especially not with him committing the worst bit of chevauchee that Westeros has ever seen. Keep in mind that Aemond's genocidal spree is part of the reason why Cregan Stark and Jeyne Arryn cannot immediately deploy their forces and send them southwards. He's in the Riverlands...both the valemen and the northmen need to traverse the Riverlands in order to both relieve the Riverlands and secure King's Landing from the Hightower and Baratheon armies.

Aemond was a problem, but he was never in a position to actually challenge Rhaenyra's rule. He was just wreaking havoc. They could have left him out there ravaging the countryside for years and it wouldn't have changed the political landscape. People would have been angry at Rhaenyra for not dealing with him, to be sure, but they wouldn't have declared for/sided with the guy who had burned their castles, fields, villages, and towns. Aemond is undermining his own cause, and Aegon II's as much or more than he is undermining Rhaenyra there.

This kind of behavior also would make Aemond a complete outcast in civilized society. What one would expect to happen to him if he continued this kind of thing is to end up like Septon Murmison or Quenton Hightower - being dragged out and ripped to pieces by an angry crowd. He would lose both respect and admiration from the lords and the smallfolk alike, turning it into fear and hatred.

The way to kill Aemond could have been surprisingly easy. Just have Corlys put a bounty of 100,000 gold dragons on his head. He was the richest man in the Realm, he could afford that. Somebody would slay him then, dragon or not. He was pretty much alone most of the time.

10 hours ago, Corvinus85 said:

Personally I'm curious about what is going to happen now with that enormous miniature of Old Valyria in the king's chambers. Will it be:

1) destroyed on Alicent's order because it is a reminder of a godless society?

2) destroyed by accident by Aegon II because he fucks around it, on it, underneath it etc.

3) destroyed in a fire at some point during the Dance, with the imagery of the fiery destruction as being a metaphor of the real Doom + the Dance.

4) it will simply be taken apart and removed and then forgotten in a storage closet.

I've been wondering about this as well. I don't think Alicent is going to destroy it, she loved her husband well enough to not do something like that. And the king's chambers will now belong to Aegon, so he is going to get rid of it. He will most likely command some servant or KG to get that garbage out so that he can redecorate the room.

They could have a scene of it being thrown out a window. That could be a nice way to also frist introduce Maegor's dried moat and spikes inside.

By the way - I think the show could turn Helaena's death into an actual murder at the hands of somebody who figured out that she was a genuine prophetic dreamer/prophetess. Of course, Rhaenyra is not likely to do it, but it could be somebody like Larys Strong or Mysaria or anybody who might plot against Rhaenyra at the time, who realizes Helaena has seen something and intends to warn her half-sister about a plot.

It could be, for instance, the fall of Dragonstone to Aegon II.

9 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Her age fits with a time where Daemon was without known paramount and around Driftmark, right after his second exile from court, and just before his marriage with Laena.

The daughter thing fits pretty well. Daemon was exiled from court in 112 AC, and Nettles was apparently born (considering her background that would be an approximation, anyway) in 113 AC. We would either assume that her mother was already a dockside whore on Driftmark when Daemon passed through on his way to the Stepstones ... or she was on the Stepstones with him as a Driftmarkian camp follower as you suggested.

The idea that Daemon would fall for a not exactly pretty girl, one who doesn't go with his Valyrian fetish, and who was further disfigured by slit nose is just not very likely.

And neither are all his recorded attempts to gentle and nice with the girl - giving her gifts, caring for her, etc. That's more a father making up for lost time and/or abandoning her than him trying to win the affection or love of the girl. That he could and would have easily taken. He was the prince consort of the Seven Kingdoms, the (in-)famous Daemon Targaryen, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

There must be a point where there relationship is too distant for the trick to work, isn't there? An ancestor from 10 generations ago give you less than 1 per thousand of "Targaryen blood".

It's also a commonly held assumption that the dragonlords practiced polygamy in order to keep their bloodlines pure and thus falicitating the bond with their dragons. That wouldn't make sense if having any single Targ ancestor could be enough.

I guess you mean incest up there, not polygamy?

One can tentatively go with the assumption that the dragonseed dragonriders have multiple dragonseeds among their ancestors, strengthening the blood of the dragon they have. George does go with the idea that the early Targaryens spread their semen rather freely among the smallfolk of the island, and we don't actually know how large the original population of Dragonstone and Driftmark was, nor how much dragonlord blood the slaves and servants the Targaryens and Velaryons brought with them from Valyria were.

I mean, one imagines the dragonlords also had plenty of body and sex slaves whose offspring inherited the blood of the dragon even if they would never be allowed to actually mount a dragon (or be severely punished if they did).

5 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Why do you think so? I've always believed that Ulf and Hugh should have a relatively close relationship with the main Targ branch. They are both pale-haired (a trait that many 50% Targ children didn't inherit).

I don't see why they couldn't be first-generation seeds (why couldn't one of them could be the son of, let's say Baelon) or second-generation (for example from Corwyn, Jorgen or Victor Velaryon).

We can guesstimate that Hugh and Ulf are both in their thirties by the time of the Dance - grown men. Hugh is a powerfully built specimen already, and Ulf a man-at-arms. That would allow either or both of them to have been sired by Baelon the Brave in his last years on Dragonstone, before he was made Hand.

Now, Hugh is allegedly a blacksmith's bastard, so possibly not the unacknowledged bastard of a Targaryen prince ... but we don't know on who Hugh's father fathered the bastard on. That could easily be an unacknowledged bastard daughter of Prince Aemon.

Baelon was a widower for long years, but he would have been discreet with his affairs on Dragonstone while Alysanne lived on the island, one imagines. And Aemon, too, considering his wife was still alive and with him. Both that could easily explain that they fathered children who they never acknowledged.

In context it would make sense to have both Hugh and Ulf as close descendants of Jaehaerys and Alysanne considering that they claimed their respective dragons.

Regarding Nettles - the book could even have Nettles' mother as Daemon's paramour on the Stepstones who he then abandoned on a whim after he learned of Rhea's death, never returning or thinking about her after chance allowed him to marry Laena Velaryon.

For the show, I think, they could have Nettles' mother as a woman Laena and Daemon chanced upon on Driftmark, included in their travelling circles only for it to end up badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

 

Aemond was a problem, but he was never in a position to actually challenge Rhaenyra's rule. He was just wreaking havoc. They could have left him out there ravaging the countryside for years and it wouldn't have changed the political landscape. People would have been angry at Rhaenyra for not dealing with him, to be sure, but they wouldn't have declared for/sided with the guy who had burned their castles, fields, villages, and towns. Aemond is undermining his own cause, and Aegon II's as much or more than he is undermining Rhaenyra there.

This kind of behavior also would make Aemond a complete outcast in civilized society. What one would expect to happen to him if he continued this kind of thing is to end up like Septon Murmison or Quenton Hightower - being dragged out and ripped to pieces by an angry crowd. He would lose both respect and admiration from the lords and the smallfolk alike, turning it into fear and hatred.

The way to kill Aemond could have been surprisingly easy. Just have Corlys put a bounty of 100,000 gold dragons on his head. He was the richest man in the Realm, he could afford that. Somebody would slay him then, dragon or not. He was pretty much alone most of the time.

 

I don't know what makes you say this means he is not in a position to challenge Rhaenyra's rule. Vhagar can easily turn the Red Keep into a second, much smaller Harrenhal. It's more then big enough for that now. Aemond is never gonna surrender and could easily end up killing his daughters and his son if Daemon refused to deal with him.

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...