[Spoilers] Episode 108 Discussion

[butterweedstrover]

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

Just as there wasn't in the books either, beyond their personal animosity and Otto's stated fear of Daemon, is my point.  The pattern of your posts and complaints therein are singularly predictable - you dislike any time the blacks are portrayed in a favorable light, and any time the greens are portrayed in a negative light.  Moreover, you nitpick and conjure random complaints when the show does depict the blacks in a negative light and the greens in a positive light.  It's quite apparent this has nothing to do with wanting a more "nuanced" narrative, but rather one that is more favorable to your "side."  You say the show - or at least the last three episodes - did nothing to portray Alicent as conflicted, when indeed episode 8 does just that. 

I’ve explained why the ‘positive’ light the Greens are casted in negates their objections to Rhaenyra sitting on the throne and makes their position less tenable. 
 

What I want is for Alicent to be given a nuanced reason for opposing Rhaenyra besides a list for power or jealousy and we didn’t get it.

[The Bard of Banefort]

After thinking on it a bit, I think the problem with this show isn’t that the characters are unlikable, it’s that it’s hard to root for them. You can root for unlikable or immoral characters (think Al Swearengen from Deadwood or Nucky from Boardwalk Empire), and un-rootable characters can still be entertaining if they’re fun enough (think reality TV). I have no desire to see any of these twats sit the Iron Throne. They’re too inconsistent and driven by whatever the plot requires of them. Jace is the only character I actively want to see succeed, and seeing all the 180s they’ve done with other characters this season, they’ll probably do the same with him too.

[frenin]

42 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

After thinking on it a bit, I think the problem with this show isn’t that the characters are unlikable, it’s that it’s hard to root for them. You can root for unlikable or immoral characters (think Al Swearengen from Deadwood or Nucky from Boardwalk Empire), and un-rootable characters can still be entertaining if they’re fun enough (think reality TV). I have no desire to see any of these twats sit the Iron Throne. They’re too inconsistent and driven by whatever the plot requires of them. Jace is the only character I actively want to see succeed, and seeing all the 180s they’ve done with other characters this season, they’ll probably do the same with him too.

Dunno i started rooting for Rhaenyra and i keep rooting for her.

I'm biased as hell tho.

[C.T. Phipps]

20 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

The fact that nobody from team Green managed to steer him in the right direction makes them all a bunch of incredible morons. And Aegon was arguably the biggest moron of all because he fired the only guy on the team who wasn't a moron.

I mean part of the issue is the "James Bond villain" syndrome of it. One of the things Roger Ebert noted in A View To a Kill is that a lot of the movies depend on the KGB or other forces trying to control lunatics. Alicent and Otto are not going to be able to direct the Crown prince with the largest of all dragons.

They unleashed a monster and he does what he wants.

[SeanF]

8 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I honestly don't know what he thought was going to happen.

Declaring the Crown Princess a whore, in front of her father and husband.

What could possibly go right?

 

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Declaring the Crown Princess a whore, in front of her father and husband.

What could possibly go right?

Maybe he should have told Luke what Robert Baratheon told Lancel Lannister.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

After thinking on it a bit, I think the problem with this show isn’t that the characters are unlikable, it’s that it’s hard to root for them. You can root for unlikable or immoral characters (think Al Swearengen from Deadwood or Nucky from Boardwalk Empire), and un-rootable characters can still be entertaining if they’re fun enough (think reality TV). I have no desire to see any of these twats sit the Iron Throne. They’re too inconsistent and driven by whatever the plot requires of them. Jace is the only character I actively want to see succeed, and seeing all the 180s they’ve done with other characters this season, they’ll probably do the same with him too.

Have to say, I don't really care much for either Jace or Luke at that point. They are neither impressive nor particularly well-written or interesting characters. Luke is kind of an ass, actually, cutting Aemond when his brother Jace was no longer in any real danger (presumably because he had processed the Strong insult by that time).

Also his smirk at the sight of the pig during the feast is both childish and kind of mean.

They are also both kind of naive and sheltered, apparently neither properly prepared for an actual conflict or to rule. I'm thinking about the comments walking around the training yard in episode 8. They should not really idealize the time of their training under Criston Cole. By this time there are two political factions in existence - the Blacks and the Greens - and Rhaenyra's elder sons should both fervent Blacks, not exactly viewing the key Green leaders and champions in a positive light.

I also think Jace is a kind of bland 'dutiful son'-like character in the book. All we know about is that he steps in for his mother and raises to the challenges the war poses in a competent manner. But that doesn't make him particularly interesting.

I honestly want to see more of Rhaenyra making decisions than her heir walking around doing that for her while she whines all day.

9 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

What I want is for Alicent to be given a nuanced reason for opposing Rhaenyra besides a list for power or jealousy and we didn’t get it.

We don't need such an interpretation of Alicent or the Greens in general because it isn't in the book. Gyldayn and his sources never portray Rhaenyra as a potentially bad or tyrannical ruler - in fact, she and her entire family are so popular with the people that lots and lots of lords just turn Black because one of her alleged bastard sons visits them - and many more just raise for her because they feel it is the right thing to do, because they or their fathers swore a vow to defend her rights, or because they honor the wishes of the late king Viserys. This is very significant to judge how she was viewed by the public, since the core Black faction at court was arrested and eventually physically destroyed by the Greens. When the war begins, Rhaenyra is down to the Lords of the Narrow Sea, the bannermen of Dragonstone. She has no other allies left. Yet as her campaign begins many other lords who were never directly approached by her or her sons end up declaring for her (all the Black Reach lords, for instance, and many Riverlanders).

Any interpretation of Rhaenyra as an unpopular, mean, or potentially bad ruler prior to her reign in 130 AC is just a very visible and deliberate (and kind of stupid and pointless) misinterpretation of her character.

Nobody but the Green traitors in their inner circle use arguments like 'she is going to kill Alicent/Otto and/or Alicent's children', 'Daemon will be the evil and monstrous true ruler under a Queen Rhaenyra', or 'Rhaenyra is a whore and her children are obviously bastards (who still inherited Laenor's deplorabale tastes from their non-father, though).

That said - your own complaints about 'the evil Greens' are also quite silly. They are pretty sympathetic and complex in the show. Your issue simply is that you don't like how Rhaenyra and her people are portrayed - they are supposed to be 'more evil' as per your wishes, while the Greens should be more idealistic in a way you would prefer.

But that would go completely against as the characters of both Aegon and Aemond as described in FaB. They are both horrible people. No sane person would ever consider crowning Aegon if they had the choice. Nobody would view him as a potentially better ruler than Rhaenyra. There is really no way to portray Aegon and Aemond accurately and also create a scenario where Otto and Alicent honestly believe that either of these two would make a better monarch than Rhaenyra.

Anyone caring about the Realm and the well-being of the people would not want to create such a king. Of course, if Aegon or Aemond had been the chosen heirs of Viserys I it would be outright treason to bar them from ascending the throne (although you could even then make a case that it should be done anyway, being in the best interest of the Realm). But in a scenarion where the anointed and chosen heir is Rhaenyra common sense should cause pretty much anyone knowing Aegon and Aemond closely to not uphold male primogeniture if the inevitable result of that would be the rise of a King Aegon or King Aemond.

[Lord Varys]

On 10/13/2022 at 4:25 AM, RumHam said:

Agreed. I like to think the dragons have personalities and she formed a different kind of bond with hers. Like that video where the lion runs up and hugs that dude. Shit happens. Most people would be too afraid to even try to befriend a lion/dragon. 

I also read her as someone who loves her dragon more than anything else. I can't think why else she'd hide out with it. She could have gone to essos but I think she picked the cave so Sheepstealer would be safe. Dragons dying over human quibbles is fuuucked up if you think about it.

Don't really buy that in her case. Dragons aren't horses, and they bond with a rider for life. That doesn't work without magic. Nettles is whore's daughter with a criminal background. She knows enough about animals and stuff to figture out that you best only try to mount a wild dragon when it tolerates your presence to the degree to not burn or devour you before you can get on its back, but there is not the slightest indication that she knew anything about magic, was a sorceress, etc.

In general, though, I agree that there must be spells and bend a dragon to your will even if you don't have dragonlord blood. Just as their are magical ways to mess with the skinchanger bond as Melisandre shows in ADwD.

The Valyrian dragonlords were so versed in magic that they figured out a way to make the ability to bond with dragons hereditary - which clearly was the foundation of their empire since it allowed multiple generations of Valyrians to control dragons, pass them on to their children, etc.

It would not surprise me if we learned that there were Children of the Forest who controlled dragons (it could explain why the First Men apparently eradicated all the dragons in Westeros). Also, of course, the Last Hero or the historical Azor Ahai could have ended up using a dragon during the Long Night.

But the idea that Nettles or any other person could claim a dragon in the Targaryen way (i.e. by simply mounting the dragon and flying it once without getting killed) by using a method that's not also the Targaryen method (which is basically having 'the blood of the dragon') is just not really convincing to me.

Aemond claiming Vhagar actually fits very well how this thing seems to go in FaB. Vhagar has to be calmed by a potential rider so that she doesn't kill the potential rider before he can mount her. But once the rider is on top of the dragon it will fall in line if the potential dragonrider does have the blood to bond with him.

The implication with Jace and Vermax in episode 6 also is, I think, that Jace has yet to mount Vermax. They are bonded to a point because Vermax was Jace's cradle dragon, but their bond is only complete if the prince does mount the dragon. For Sheepstealer and Nettles the situation should be played up as much more dangerous. Sheepstealer would not come conveniently with a saddle, nor would he be in any way tolerant of humans. Even after Nettles starts feeding Sheepstealer, it must be portrayed as very dangerous to approach him and try to mount him.

It would be also great if the wild dragons were actually portrayed as apex predators - humans approaching them or looking for their lairs should end up becoming dragon prey.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I also think Jace is a kind of bland 'dutiful son'-like character in the book. All we know about is that he steps in for his mother and raises to the challenges the war poses in a competent manner. But that doesn't make him particularly interesting.

Yeah I think there is an inherent inclination to depict Jace as basically Robb Stark 2.0.  Can't say it's wrong, but it's also pretty boring.  Overall, let's face it, the male kids on both sides aren't very interesting in the books, albeit they did a good job building up Aemond these past two episodes.  That is what it is.  What I'm most looking forward to in that regard is how they'll introduce Daeron in season 2. 

Conversely, they can do a lot with Baela and Rhaena, at least, and I hope they do.  Plus they've at least made Helaena interesting, wherein she was pretty much a blank slate in the books.

[RumHam]

On 10/10/2022 at 6:25 PM, sifth said:

 

Daemon chopping off Vaemond's head, reminded me of Matt Smiths deleted scene from In Bruges.

I forgot to ask, what is the context of this? I love that movie but like is Smith young Brenden Gleeson maybe? 

[The Bard of Banefort]

I will probably change my mind a hundred times between now and the end of the series, but I don’t know if it was a good idea to frame this conflict as a Rhaenyra vs. Alicent battle-of-the-bitches. Maybe I’d feel differently if I didn’t look at any of the discourse, but it’s hard not to come away feeling a little queasy after seeing arguments over which woman is “good” and which one is “bad.” I had actually been enjoying the blacks vs. greens stuff online the past few weeks, but the story is ultimately framed around two women who change quite drastically on an episode-to-episode basis, and it just feels a little gross right now.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

I will probably change my mind a hundred times between now and the end of the series, but I don’t know if it was a good idea to frame this conflict as a Rhaenyra vs. Alicent battle-of-the-bitches. Maybe I’d feel differently if I didn’t look at any of the discourse, but it’s hard not to come away feeling a little queasy after seeing arguments over which woman is “good” and which one is “bad.” I had actually been enjoying the blacks vs. greens stuff online the past few weeks, but the story is ultimately framed around two women who change quite drastically on an episode-to-episode basis, and it just feels a little gross right now.

I actually don't think they will take that road. I think Alicent is not going to become Rhaenyra's big nemesis. Her men will push her aside, take matters out of her hands entirely (I mean Aegon, Aemond, Criston, and Larys there). I could even see Rhaenyra and Alicent kind of re-bonding during Rhaenyra's reign, with Alicent finally realizing that her old friend is or could be a fine monarch, after all. Of course she would still be torn between loyalty for her family, trying to protect them, but I think the writers could make it work that these two women won't be stuck in an eternal bitch fight.

The way to turn this story into a good TV show is to do some unexpected things, especially where the personal relationships are concerned.

[RumHam]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Don't really buy that in her case. Dragons aren't horses, and they bond with a rider for life. That doesn't work without magic. Nettles is whore's daughter with a criminal background. She knows enough about animals and stuff to figture out that you best only try to mount a wild dragon when it tolerates your presence to the degree to not burn or devour you before you can get on its back, but there is not the slightest indication that she knew anything about magic, was a sorceress, etc.

In general, though, I agree that there must be spells and bend a dragon to your will even if you don't have dragonlord blood. Just as their are magical ways to mess with the skinchanger bond as Melisandre shows in ADwD.

I don't doubt that the Targaryens used some kind of blood magic bond to control dragons and bind them for life. I still think it's possible that with the right animal one could form a non-magical bond. It would probably require an unusually intelligent dragon with the right disposition. 

I mentioned the guy and his lion friend. I remember an example with an alligator and his handler too. Sometimes animals develop bonds with humans that do not require magic. Plus there's the bit about how she feeds him before each flight. Good dragonrider practice or the only way she can get him to reliably obey? 

I forget if I mentioned this before but I could see them making Nettles one of the Dragonkeepers, maybe a failed one who gets kicked out or an aspiring one but they don't allow women. Or maybe she was raised by one.

As for the bolded....so? I don't see how that disqualifies her in either case. 

[Mithras]

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

Rhaenyra vs. Alicent battle-of-the-bitches

That is Condal's idea of writing strong female characters.

[Mithras]

The idea of Targaryen/Valyrian blood supremacy is a bad jape.

I have this special blood that ... pretty much half of Westeros and all of Essos populations have.

[RumHam]

17 minutes ago, Mithras said:

The idea of Targaryen/Valyrian blood supremacy is a bad jape.

I have this special blood that ... pretty much half of Westeros and all of Essos populations have.

You're exaggerating, and they marry their sisters and cousins because supposedly it has to be "pure" 

You remind me of something relevant to my conversation with @Lord Varys though. Warging seems to be linked to blood. But just because a character didn't have the ability to skinchange into an animal does not mean they can't "tame" it by normal means. It's going to be so rare and dangerous that it's generally not worth trying. But it could happen with the right animal. Pull a thorn from it's paw or whatever, maybe. 

Also wasn't there at least one minor lord or knight who participated in the sowing despite having no possible Valyrian blood? 

[The hairy bear]

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

Also wasn't there at least one minor lord or knight who participated in the sowing despite having no possible Valyrian blood? 

Both Ser Steffon Darklyn and Lord Gormon Massey participated (and died) in the Sowing. Although, with both of their houses being from the Blackwater Bay, it's perfectly possible that they may have had some drop of Targaryen blood.

[Ran]

George is about as explicit as he's ever been that blood matters and that the Valyrians knew this about things magical, including the dragons.

In my mind, it's always been a matter of having "the right drop" -- some "genetic" key, for lack of a better word. One can say there are indeed thousands of Targaryen descendants among dragonseeds and their descendants in turn, since it goes back centuries, but obviously the genetic lottery is fickle and the trait is rare unless carefully preserved. Hence Targaryen incest.

[sifth]

9 hours ago, RumHam said:

I forgot to ask, what is the context of this? I love that movie but like is Smith young Brenden Gleeson maybe? 

Matt Smith plays the younger version of Ralph Phineas character Harry. Brenden Gleeson constantly mentions in the film how much he's in debt to Harry. This flashback, was suppose to explain why.

Edited October 14, 2022 by sifth

[Ingelheim]

12 hours ago, Ran said:

George is about as explicit as he's ever been that blood matters and that the Valyrians knew this about things magical, including the dragons.

In my mind, it's always been a matter of having "the right drop" -- some "genetic" key, for lack of a better word. One can say there are indeed thousands of Targaryen descendants among dragonseeds and their descendants in turn, since it goes back centuries, but obviously the genetic lottery is fickle and the trait is rare unless carefully preserved. Hence Targaryen incest.

That does make a lot of sense, because in reality the Targaryen blood purity is basically a myth; by the time Daenerys is alive, she has probably like...10%? of pure Targaryen blood. They've married too many times outside of their family branch, but still the genes remain dominant the majority of occasions.

And still, they seem to be the only ones alive who can control dragons.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Ingelheim