Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Daeron the Daring said:

Just tought about it: HBO should've had Daena the Defiant be the narrator of the intro, with possibly having a few more lines too (kind of How I Met Your Mother style, but with way way less narration) in the coming episodes and seasons, and in the end it should've been revealed that she was telling the story to Daemon Waters, later Daemon Blackfyre. Of course, the story should've still been present from an omnipresent POV.

Imagine that setup for a Blackfyre Rebellion series.

I'm notably someone who hopes we skip the Blackfyre Rebellion for Dunk and Egg to do the aftermath. Seeing it would seriously underestimate the mystery of it in the second novella's adaptation of it. Mind you, I feel like the same "problems" of HOTD would be there.

Because I believe the Blackfyres should be portrayed as pure evil, morons, dishonorable, and everything wrong with Westeros.

And I see the EXACT arguments happening again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ingelheim said:

Showrunner Ryan Condal on Aemond’s actions that differ from the books in the finale of House Of The Dragon :

From an interview with Variety: https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/house-of-the-dragon-finale-explained-aemond-luke-rhaenrya-daemon-season-2-1235412136/

EDIT: By the way, the interview metions several times that they are not taking F&B as perfect account of the events.

Read it. It's worth it.

I really like the explanation he gives for what Rhaenyra is doing. Makes so much sense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

You can love and still be dedicated to your children and still be a bad parent. 
 

That’s a technical differences. If you love your children and are worried about their well-being you would be worried about their wellbeing. Instead she continues to push them even while they show resistance and outright rejects an olive branch for sake of their protection your goal and your behavior are at odds.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

She loves her children and wants to protect them -> She pushes her fears onto her children because she loves them and is afraid of losing them to Rhaenyra -> Children get screwed up as a result for it. 
 

No, she wants to protect her children. Her children get screwed. She keeps screwing her children because she doesn’t want Rhaenyra on the throne and that now takes precedent over them. Screwed child rapes someone and she disowns him and only returns to him out of obligation to her husband to put him on the throne.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

If you add to that a complete indifferent father who only has eyes for his daughter... Well. 
 

Viserys is not the source of the pressure causing him to act like this. In fact the only sense that Viserys is not enough is that he favors his daughter over him, but he still has love for his son as he says repeatedly.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

I get you don't like it, i really do but there is one thing to voice your dislike and quite another pretend that somethinng is objectively bad because you don't like it. We online people have that disease and it's annoying. 
 

It is objectively bad because it contradicts itself and makes for a bad storyline to gets us invested into a civil war.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

 

 

  1. Really.
  2. None, that's the point. Viserys doesn't care about him really. His only care is that he doesn't do something stuid and get in the way of Rhaenyra's ascension... Which soon enough. 
     

That’s your opinion and irrelevant either way because if Alicent loved her children that would be enough. But she doesn’t show any concern for their well-being despite that ostensibly being the reason she would betray her best friend.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:
  1. Viserys sure as hell wanted himself on the throne, he may have come to dislike ruling, but he contested Rhaenys's claim. 
     

No, I mean Aegon. Aegon doesn’t want himself on the throne and Viserys doesn’t want Aegon on the throne, it is just Alicent causing problems.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

He blames both, he feels he's not adequate to either. [I did not ask for this, i did everything you've asked me to and i try so hard but it'll never be enough for you or father.

Because his mother set the expectations for what he should have and made Viserys (rational) unwillingness to name him heir over Rhaenyra seem like a rejection.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

The show presents Viserys as an indifferent father at best... Which is not good.  
 

We really don’t know that. We see Viserys obsessing over him as a baby and then be sick over the proceeding decade turning him into Alicent’s plaything. If there was one scene where he refused to speak to his son or couldn’t make time you’d have a point. But there isn’t so that is all just speculation. 
 

Even if true, it wouldn’t absolve Alicent putting her hatred of Rhaenyra over the safety of her kids. Which was the entire reason she was working against Rhaenyra in the first place.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

The show also presents how Viserys's indifference has  warped him... Which is also not good. 
 

What? We are made to celebrate his triumphant return to the throne and smack down of Otto when they were about to disinherit Lucerys.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

But no, Viserys is not to blame for Aegon's treason... That was always somethinng his mother, grandfather and Cole would push him towards. 
 

Yes.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

 

According to you. 
 

He does not rape the girl for any reason besides to pleasure himself. Him wanting pleasure instead of the throne does not equate to raping for pleasure. 
 

The problem isn’t that he is looking for indulgences as a rejection of his duty, it is that he finds it through raping an innocent maid than I don’t know, going to a brothel.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

Well yeah.

Evil can have depth but it remains evil.

Aegon can and does have depth but he remains an incredible piece of shit. 
 

Respectfully disagree. An act is only evil if the context provided does not explain the act in any moral terms.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

 

There is absolutely no reasons for Alicent to want her children to rule other than they are her children. 
 

There is, if her rivalry with Rhaenyra is so strong that she either thinks: Rhaenyra would be a bad queen or B: Rhaenyra will kill my children. She has no reason to believe either in the show.

17 minutes ago, frenin said:

The greenest source there is describes Aegon as sulky, drunken, lazy and sexual predator. Aemond is equal parts a psycho and stupid and the best thing about Daeron is that he's not like his brothers. 
 

Daeron has redeeming qualities. And Helaena is a good daughter. So in the book she does raise two good kids. Daeron is no where to be found and Helaena is turned into a mentally handicapped mystic spewing at cryptic clues like an NPC.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

With the first full season finished, they should have started a year/six months before Viserys' death, and given the kids a full season to develop and grow on the audience, rather than trying to depict so much backstory. Important background info could've been revealed over time when useful. Still enjoy it, but the aged up kids and other players needed more time.

Absolutely. It feels like everything before episode 8 was a massive prologue, and a lot of it turned out to be irrelevant or unimportant. At the very least there should have been only one big timejump/recasting, if they wanted to show Aegon, Jace, and co. as kids and then transition to them as adults halfway through the season.

The only parts of the first five episodes that seem really worthwhile to me, in retrospect, are those dealing with Rhaenyra's and Alicent's friendship and Viserys' indecision (though this was beaten into the ground a little). But there could have been other ways to convey all this if the show started later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daemon mentioned the Dragonkeepers being capable fighters. This is interesting since most of us were a little surprised at their portrayal. Bear in mind, it doesn't make much sense for the Dragonkeepers to be armed and armored when handling dragons, though some of them should pull guard duty shifts to ensure morons don't break into the Dragonpit. 

So I suppose that the Dragonkeepers could have arms and armor at the ready or maybe they're like Shaolin monks. I'm leaning towards the latter. So when the storming of the Dragonpit happens, if I don't see some Wuxia style action I'll be sorely disappointed. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Many viewers are actually confused as to why he wants Luke's eye now since he said earlier that losing his own eye to get Vhagar was a fair exchange.

Yeah, I did thought about that too. It kinda negate what he said previously.

It doesn't mean that Aemond wasn't still bitter about it. But I thought he was right back then (an eye for a Dragon.) and his action now makes what he said previously less powerful and convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

That’s a technical differences. If you love your children and are worried about their well-being you would be worried about their wellbeing. Instead she continues to push them even while they show resistance and outright rejects an olive branch for sake of their protection your goal and your behavior are at odds.

I was going to go with a big reply but this is incredibly and I'm not going to humor you. My point was made, if you disagree, i can live with that. :P:cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Adaneth said:

You know what? It's going to be goddamn difficult for me to watch the Dragons get killed, one after another. I don't know what that says about me, but there you go. lol

It was difficult enough reading about it, so I share your feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

What I take from it is that it's probably a hint towards him being able to skinchange dragons. It'd be a huge spoiler for the actual series so I don't think they'd fully commit to it beyond doubt. His (and Rhaenyra's over Syrax) control over Ceraxes is straight telepathic but that can just be TV contrivance, but his eye literally taking the shape of the dragon eye is pretty fucking out there. As you ask, wtf is the point of that?

It's notable that the song Daemon sings sounded like a lullaby, and previously Rhaenyra's unborn child died on Dragonstone. There are theories which speculate that Tagaryens had practised blood magic to bind the souls of their unborn children to dragons. Maybe this scene showed us Daemon's deeper knowledge of dragon bonds, and he was in some way paying his own form of respects to his unborn child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Many viewers are actually confused as to why he wants Luke's eye now since he said earlier that losing his own eye to get Vhagar was a fair exchange.

It felt quite clear to me that little Aemond understood he needed to let it go at that moment to protect his mother. Even Otto told her to drop the blade.

It doesn't mean that he would forgive the person responsible for taking his eye out. I certainly wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm kinda hoping for the storming of the dragonpit (nonsensical as it was in F&B). I never really understood why people seem to love these huge fire-breathing chickens the way they do. It's like they value the lives of these animals way more then the lives of the many peasants and people they burned alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slant said:

I really like the explanation he gives for what Rhaenyra is doing. Makes so much sense. 

Yep, I think Ryan was spot on here. His take on the finale and the concept of the show as a whole is one I really enjoyed.

I hope Season 2 keeps exploring the unreliable narration of F&B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

In terms of her sex life, her "self-indulgence" is the same in the books, and are not "at the expense of her duties" nor a character flaw in the books either.  It's only you who is burying their head in the sand about that. 
 

Her sexual escapades are very different in the book and the in the show. The show makes it clear her duty to the realm is beyond question and her sexual activity is not a betrayal of anyone except those who are irrational zealots.
 

It’s about framing. In the book her escapades lead to the death of Harwin, Laenor, Vaemond, and potentially more. You can absolve her as much as you want but that is speculation on your part, not reality. 
 

She puts a target on them by having bastards while in the show Harwin’s death because his brother is hand, Laenor lives happily ever after, and Vaemond is killed because he calls the princess a whore in front of the whole court for something that wasn’t her fault. 

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

...And she absolutely does the first two in the show.  And while she may not have ordered Daemon to kill Vaemond, it's absurd to think she wouldn't have in the show as well.  How you can be so blinded by bias as to make make your own counter-argument is absolutely hilarious. 
 

No she doesn’t. She does not seek Harwin out for self-satisfaction, but because she needs children and Laenor won’t give her any. The fact that she enjoys her time with Harwin is an added bonus. 
 

And she doesn’t raise bastards in defiance of the realm, she does it because she literally has no other choice. 
 

As for Vaemond, context my friend, read the context of the scene and figure out how it is different. His death doesn’t reflect paranoia onto Rhaenyra or her team, but an actual defense of women against the misogyny of the realm.

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

...Except where that's explicitly Eustace's - the most greens-biased chronicler - account of what happened.  If you want to believe Mushroom's instead, fair enough, but don't outright lie about what the book said. 
 

Here is the thing you aren’t seeming to grasp. F&B does not disclose the private reasons people have, but we can look at the sequence of events and be given an impression. You want to assume Rhaenyra lost Cole through no fault of her own, that she wouldn’t approve of Laenor’s death, but all these things are not told to us, they are in your imagination.

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

There's absolutely a rivalry in the show, you're just burying your head in the sand.  Is it tempered by the show including their childhood friendship?  Absolutely.  But that makes BOTH Rhaenyra and Alicent more sympathetic.  That you're too blinded by bias to see that is sad. 
 

This is tiring to explain, but a friendship does not temper a rivalry, it increases it. Alicent is absolutely going after Rhaenyra in the show and as a betrayal, not just as a random antagonist. This should affect Rhaenyra even more. 

But Rhaenyra shows no hurt feelings and doesn’t respond leaving this rivalry to come off as not a rivalry, but the delusions of one person who doesn’t even have a legitimate reason to hate Rhaenyra. 
 

In the book they both hate each other.

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

And in the books she's even more adamant against marrying Laenor.  And in the books she also has "no concern for the norms" and does have bastard children.  How you can be so willfully ignorant of the text is both hilarious and sad. 
 

Lol, let’s look at the sequence of events: 

Rhaenyra marries Laenor. 
Rhaenyra raises bastards not from Laenor.  
Harwin dies.
Laenor dies. 
Now Rhaenyra is having more children with her uncle.
 

The private reasons in the book are not disclosed, we are not told why these things happen. But we are left with an impression. 
 

It was the show’s decision to absolve Rhaenyra of slacking in her duties as a wife to Laenor, of having Harwin’s death be unrelated to his affair with Rhaenyra, of having Laenor’s ‘death’ to be done for both his sake and her claim to the throne. Just like it was the show’s decision to remove any paranoia about the bastards and have them be inconsequential to the reasons war is fought.

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

The show makes it clear they tried for awhile but it didn't result in a pregnancy and just wasn't either's bag.  That's the pretty clear implication in the books as well.
 

Your opinion is not the book. Which is your problem, you have a skewed understanding of the book based on how it services the show. 

Rhaenyra was never the saint she was in the show in the book which has so far been your only justification for why the show should do such a stupid thing.

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

  I honestly don't get why you think Rhaenyra having bastards while married to a gay man with his own paramour makes her look "bad" to the reader in the books.  The only one that seems to think so is you. 
 

It looks bad because then he dies and she remarries making it seem she was never concerned about her husband or felt duty bound to him in anyway. 

In the show she is both dutiful and sexually liberated, and lacking in any vengeance or capacity for negative emotions.

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

No where in the books is it suggested she "rejected" Laenor.  He returned to Driftmark after the wedding.  He "preferred the comforts of High Tide" with Correy.  You really should try actually reading Fire & Blood. 
 

Seriously DMC, that’s not an in depth reason. It’s not psychological, it’s not even a motivation. How much did Rhaenyra even put into this marriage? Your reading of the book is seriously debilitated by the desire to pick and choose what you see.  

Laenor going off to High Tide isn’t a sign Rhaenyra was a dedicated wife to him. She might have ignored him and that is all her actions suggest.

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

No where in the books is it suggested Rhaenyra was involved in Laenor's murder.  Eustace claims it was Correy due to jealously, Mushroom claims Daemon hired Correy in order to wed Rhaenyra.  I really hope you get to read the book at some point.

But seriously, it’s funny how in order to defend her characterization in the show you are unable of finding one passage from the book that would cast her in a light similar to the show so you try to create assumptions from things that never happened. 

Because she was not directly involved with Laenor’s death does not change the fact she benefited from it. It does not change the fact that she seized the opportunities provided to her to strengthen her power at the expense of others. That leaves an impression. 
 

The show goes out of its way to absolve of her of even personal gain at some moral evil. She is eternally good. Harwin dies, Laenor ‘dies’, Vaemond dies, and through it all Rhaenyra is clean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, frenin said:

I was going to go with a big reply but this is incredibly and I'm not going to humor you. My point was made, if you disagree, i can live with that. :P:cheers:

The thing is, Alicent doesn’t want him to be king for his own sake, but for his protection. If she rejects any proposal that might protect her son and uses him to fuel her rivalry with Rhaenyra (because apparently Rhaenyra lacks a sense of duty so Alicent is jealous of her) the motivation isn’t about the son anymore. Oh yeah, and then she disowns him. 

The thing is, people here pretend that the show made Rhaenyra morally untouchable because of the book which isn’t true. Rhaenyra benefited from a lot of evil things and never once showed opposition to them yet the show goes out of its way to absolve her. 

As for Alicent, she claims she is doing this for her son then prioritizes the rivalry over his safety then disowns him. If this was a potential motive, they wouldn’t have needed Viserys death bed scene to change Alicent’s mind. 
 

It is all so clearly bad I cannot comprehend people who tell themselves otherwise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Khloey said:

It felt quite clear to me that little Aemond understood he needed to let it go at that moment to protect his mother. Even Otto told her to drop the blade.

It doesn't mean that he would forgive the person responsible for taking his eye out. I certainly wouldn't.

The time jump also doesn't help because we don't know how the relationship between these children instead of improving, at least try to, got worse. But it is clear that when we see them as young adults there is no affection. Things are irreparably bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, zajaz said:

Personally, I'm kinda hoping for the storming of the dragonpit (nonsensical as it was in F&B). I never really understood why people seem to love these huge fire-breathing chickens the way they do. It's like they value the lives of these animals way more then the lives of the many peasants and people they burned alive.

Do those peasants have names?

That's what i thought.

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...