Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

You didn’t call me out on anything, you are severely undereducated in this respect, to the point where you can’t keep a consistent argument, shifting the subject from economic reform, to political repression, and back to some vague concept of ‘progress’ whenever it suites your needs.  

LOL!!!  I never made any argument as such about any of this.  Just simply pointed out that your assertion concerning contemporary monarchies is empirically and manifestly wrong - as has been demonstrated by plenty of research I'm familiar through not only my own review of the literature but friends and colleagues that are experts in that particular field.  Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion feel free to PM me.  This derail should stop.

5 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

But like I said before, if Rhaenyra were to have open sexual relationships, especially with a threat looming about her throne, she’d either be incredibly stupid or incredibly tyrannical.

And like I said before, there's no reason to think she'd ever do this based on the text.  She's never had "open sexual relationship," and your assumption that she has is, again, just adopting Cole's slut-shaming propaganda and posing it as a legitimate argument, when it's not.

9 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

In fact I don’t feel the need to assume intentions into characters given none.

:lmao:You are literally assuming Rhaenyra would be a bad ruler due to behavior she has never demonstrated.  That's what this entire discussion is about, and it's the apex of hypocrisy.

10 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

Again, dispensing with critique using dragon fire is tyrannical.

Who said anything about dragon fire?  Did Jaehaerys employ dragon fire to ensure his marriage to Alysanne was accepted?  No?  Then stop bringing up irrelevant shit that's willfully misunderstanding my argument and the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL!!!  I never made any argument as such about any of this.  Just simply pointed out that your assertion concerning contemporary monarchies is empirically and manifestly wrong - as has been demonstrated by plenty of research I'm familiar through not only my own review of the literature but friends and colleagues that are experts in that particular field.  Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion feel free to PM me.  This derail should stop. 
 

The only one derailing the conversation is you. The topic was related to a discussion about the book, and you decided to jump in. I’m not going to entertain your ignorance, especially when you quite literally acknowledge the Targaryens to be above religious principles (thereby making your whining null and void). 

It was an interesting side bar with ramifications for the concept of nobility in ASOIAF and you decided to blow it up with your attitude and destructive personality, something created by a serious deficit in knowledge. BTW: I was referencing absolute monarchies (monarchies with political power) against constitutional monarchies (which are symbols of the past). 
 

You’d know this if you had the decency to conceptualize what people are saying and not what you want them to be saying (just as you abhorrently decry me as a misogynist for discussing political ramifications). 

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

And like I said before, there's no reason to think she'd ever do this based on the text.  She's never had "open sexual relationship," and your assumption that she has is, again, just adopting Cole's slut-shaming propaganda and posing it as a legitimate argument, when it's not. 
 

My assumption isn’t either way. It is your assumption that it was never possible which is skewing your vision. 
 

We can hypothesize that if she did, like Cole believes, then she would qualify as a bad choice for monarch. That was my position and you (per usual) decide to wobble around by saying Aegon IV or someone else would/was worse, never trying to focus on the subject at hand. 
 

And this is all while claiming there is a double standard. Which if true means Rhaenyra must be more vigilant against such claims. But in the lead up she did a great many things of questionable motives (killing those who would question her children’s parentage, marrying her murderous uncle soon after the mysterious death of her legitimate husband, and making a paramour out of a kingsguard (sworn to chastity). 
 

It wasn’t until the show that all this was whitewashed and all her actions were either justified or brushed under the rug killing any moral ambiguity behind her character or position as queen. That was my criticism and yet you are so dedicated to seeing the show succeed you take out this unearned loyalty on some random person you’ve never met.

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

:lmao:You are literally assuming Rhaenyra would be a bad ruler due to behavior she has never demonstrated.  That's what this entire discussion is about, and it's the apex of hypocrisy. 
 

I assumed that if she did act in the way Cole said, it would be wrong. And you made that about me not wanting women to have sexual freedoms because you can’t keep your arguments straight.

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

Who said anything about dragon fire?  Did Jaehaerys employ dragon fire to ensure his marriage to Alysanne was accepted?  No?  Then stop bringing up irrelevant shit that's willfully misunderstanding my argument and the text.

The doctrine of exceptionalism was about their bloodline and how the dragon is above social norms of everyone else. That was the point of the discussion of monarchy which you never grasped. 

And Rhaenyra, to pursue sexual pleasure at her whim, would go beyond that, and if war comes like she knows it would what would she use to enforce her authority but dragons. 
 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

The only one derailing the conversation is you. The topic was related to a discussion about the book, and you decided to jump in. I’m not going to entertain your ignorance, especially when you quite literally acknowledge the Targaryens to be above religious principles (thereby making your whining null and void). 

It was an interesting side bar with ramifications for the concept of nobility in ASOIAF and you decided to blow it up with your attitude and destructive personality, something created by a serious deficit in knowledge. BTW: I was referencing absolute monarchies (monarchies with political power) against constitutional monarchies (which are symbols of the past). 
 

You’d know this if you had the decency to conceptualize what people are saying and not what you want them to be saying (just as you abhorrently decry me as a misogynist for discussing political ramifications).

Please stop with your self-righteous and brazenly hypocritical attacks.  I pointed out your ignorance and cited it.  If you have anything else to say on the subject, again, take it to PM.

3 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

My assumption isn’t either way. It is your assumption that it was never possible which is skewing your vision. 

LOL.  No, this is Alice In Wonderland logic.  I'm not assuming anything.  You are assuming Rhaenyra upon taking the throne would exhibit behavior that's never detailed nor suggested in the text.  Thus your "we don't know" horseshit slander that has no textual basis.

9 minutes ago, butterweedstrover said:

The doctrine of exceptionalism was about their bloodline and how the dragon is above social norms of everyone else. That was the point of the discussion of monarchy which you never grasped.

I grasped it entirely.  You are the one that took my Jaehaerys/Alysanne example and mistook that for an analogy of Rhaenyra "using dragon fire [that] is tyrannical."  Which is shockingly ignorant of the text and subsequent analogy.  In other words, par for the course on your routine pathetic argumentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2022 at 11:07 AM, Adaneth said:

Also, can we have Aemond without the eyepatch in S2? He doesn't need it. That artificial eye looked awesome. 

While it was amazing, the sapphire is exponentially more expensive than the eyepatch, and I personally think there’s better use for that part of the budget. 

Also, the less we see of it, the the longer it will remain awesome.

Edited by ShadowKitteh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Historically, there's increasing attention that the majority of Pre-Industrial improvements to the lives of the working class was due to "New Monarchs" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Monarchs as well as a larger cultural trend that populist dictators often turn to the public as a whole to increase their power against a hereditary ruling class: Caesar, Napoleon, and other examples in history.

Which is interesting because very likely the show Daenerys would have been one of these. She would have improved the life of the Smallfolk and relied on their centralized loyalty to her to weaken the power of the ruling class.

Thanks Jon.

It even goes back to Plato.  Plato thought that a tyrant would free slaves and benefit the lower classes, in order to buttress his support, in the face of opposition from decent, male, slave-owning folks.

Plato thought that a bad thing (as indeed, did Benioff & Weiss).  The ending to Season 8 is an oligarch’s wet dream.

Rule by a powerful monarchy is generally better for the lower classes than rule by a powerful aristocracy, pursuing their private wars and vendettas.

Edited by SeanF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It even goes back to Plato.  Plato thought that a tyrant would free slaves and benefit the lower classes, in order to buttress his support, in the face of opposition from decent, male, slave-owning folks.

Plato thought that a bad thing (as indeed, did Benioff & Weiss).  The ending to Season 8 is an oligarch’s wet dream.

Rule by a powerful monarchy is generally better for the lower classes than rule by a powerful aristocracy, pursuing their private wars and vendettas.

Yep because it's better to have one tyrant than 200 petty ones.

And better to have no tyrants at all.

But that's the anarchist in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

New interview from Condal. He mentions a scene between Baela and Rhaenys that was cut from the final episode, but says that any other cut scenes from the finale didn’t need to be included. I see this as further confirmation that the showrunners see Daemon as a villain. In a way, I’m glad they’re committing to it. Once they decided to have him murder his wife with his own two hands, there was no coming back from that.

https://www.vulture.com/article/house-of-the-dragon-finale-ending-explained-director-interview.html

The interview is with Yaitanes (the finale's director), not Condal. :P Still, a very interesting one. I laughed at the idea of a pijama party of grown-up men playing with dragon toys, as a preparation for shooting a deadly battle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Condal sees Daemon as a villain. He sees him as an especially dark anti-hero. He has remarked that he finds Visenya extremely fascinating, and considers her to have been the sibling that was the "true blood of the dragon". Which contextualizes the episode 1 remark (written by Condal) that when Viserys said to Aemma that the family already had a Visenya, he meant his brother Daemon.

Condal's take on the "true blood of the dragon" Targaryens appear to be that they are almost dragon-like in their personas, ruthless and full of hubris and violence, but have the abilities to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

This also gives greater context to Viserys's remark on dragons being a force the Valyrians shouldn't have meddled with, that they can't be controlled. He pretty much believes the same about Daemon.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The hairy bear said:

The interview is with Yaitanes (the finale's director), not Condal. :P Still, a very interesting one. I laughed at the idea of a pijama party of grown-up men playing with dragon toys, as a preparation for shooting a deadly battle.

Whoops, good catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ran said:

I don't think Condal sees Daemon as a villain. He sees him as an especially dark anti-hero. He has remarked that he finds Visenya extremely fascinating, and considers her to have been the sibling that was the "true blood of the dragon". Which contextualizes the episode 1 remark (written by Condal) that when Viserys said to Aemma that the family already had a Visenya, he meant his brother Daemon.

Condal's take on the "true blood of the dragon" Targaryens appear to be that they are almost dragon-like in their personas, ruthless and full of hubris and violence, but have the abilities to actually walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

This also gives greater context to Viserys's remark on dragons being a force the Valyrians shouldn't have meddled with, that they can't be controlled. He pretty much believes the same about Daemon.

Visenya had more self-control than Daemon.

Overall, she’s my favourite Targaryen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Visenya had more self-control than Daemon.

Did she? Her relationship with her siblings is as much a mystery as Aegon is. Perhaps it was tempestuous and troubled in a way the historians never realized.

11 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Overall, she’s my favourite Targaryen.

The Dragonknight for me, but of the three founders of the dynasty, yes, she's the most interesting for me as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DMC said:

Please stop with your self-righteous and brazenly hypocritical attacks.  I pointed out your ignorance and cited it.  If you have anything else to say on the subject, again, take it to PM. 

I was making a point about monarchies in religious societies and I don't feel the need to withdraw that due to your low level bullying tactics. It's relevant to the subject of Rhaenyra and if the mods want to call it off-topic fine, but you embarrassing yourself isn't my problem. On some level you'd have to have known arguing about the Arab Spring or Saudi Arabia wasn't reflective of the elite being less social progressive than the general population, and yet you decided to go down that route anyways and backed off once the conversation got too serious, so why make it in the first place? And why frame the discussion as contemporary monarchies when it was about absolute monarchies vs. constitutional monarchies? 

I'm not going to PM because I don't want to have a political discussion. But I do question why you jump into a discussion, make some irrelevant classifications, then shut it down because you decide it is off topic. It comes off as less of an intellectual disagreement and more of a combative personal tone you take when people you don't like.  

And lol, you are the most self-righteous person in the world. That is why you accuse people discussing the political ramifications of certain behaviors as misogynists or whatever. 

7 hours ago, DMC said:

LOL.  No, this is Alice In Wonderland logic.  I'm not assuming anything.  You are assuming Rhaenyra upon taking the throne would exhibit behavior that's never detailed nor suggested in the text.  Thus your "we don't know" horseshit slander that has no textual basis. 

The way you stretch those 'behaviors' to mean Aegon IV is really something. You made the assumption that she could/would never have sexual relationships outside of her marriage, and from the book we couldn't know that. Rhaenyra instigated multiple sexual relationships and watched as those same people died or were removed when becoming obstacles to her ascension. And she benefited from all of these without divulging any great opposition or grief to their passing, and sometimes showed outright support. 

The murder of Vaemond was about her sexual proclivities, as was Laenor, and Harwin, and her animosity towards Cole and Alicent. The show is the one that depicted everything in a way that absolved Rhaenyra of any moral wrongdoing, but with just the book it is possible she might rule with sexual deviances which might not be an issue by modern standards but would be for Westeros and thereby qualify as poor decision making on her part. 

Cole's exaggeration, whether real or imagined, and his own vendetta against Rhaenya, does not change how readers might predict her actions thereafter. And I never assumed she would have an open sexual relationship as Queen. I only said that, if she did, I think that would make her a bad monarch because it would reflect poor decision making and a self-entitled attitude. 

Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant because she can't change the standards society judges her by, she can only react to the precedents set by others. And if Rhaenyra doesn't care enough to be aware of these reactions, I don't see why she should pursue the burden of leadership. 

Having a competitor to the throne living and well only makes these proclivities more destructive because they lead the kingdoms straight into war.

7 hours ago, DMC said:

I grasped it entirely.  You are the one that took my Jaehaerys/Alysanne example and mistook that for an analogy of Rhaenyra "using dragon fire [that] is tyrannical."  Which is shockingly ignorant of the text and subsequent analogy.  In other words, par for the course on your routine pathetic argumentation.

No, I get Jaehaerys didn't burn the realm. My point is his authority came from the threat his dragons held. And if Rhaenyra means to actively quell a war her own lack of concern and self-indulgent attitude created, she'd either use that power or be killed. 

Either result would have made her a bad choice as a potential monarch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Nothing happens in that scene because nothing was ever going to happen. Leaving her in the brothel was about his own problems, not hers. Elsewise he showers her with trinkets, endlessly indulges her, and puts her claim above his own. The sex scene on the beach wasn't just about carnality. 

This is, again, conjecture based on your personal interpretation. Your framing is not consistent. For instance, you equate Daemon caring about his family with him being presented as above reproach and perfect, yet when people mention in-show evidence of Aemond caring about his mother and sister, you dismiss this as him having nefarious ulterior motives that are completely absent from the show, to support your overall assertion that the show has 'whitewashed' the Blacks and horribly maligned and caricatured the Greens. Except all this does is  highlight your own bias, which makes you amplify anything 'good' Daemon might do, and ignore anything 'bad' he has clearly done, whilst applying the exact opposite filter to Aemond. Where, for instance, the vast majority of the audience might see Aemond's lack of murderous intent toward Lucerys as humanising him, you would probably dismiss that as being 'stupid'. If that is not bias, I don't know what is. In summary, you ignore Daemon's bad deeds to fixate on his good ones, and do the opposite with the Greens, whilst categorising their good qualities as evidence of deceit, poor writing or mental illness. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

As for the choking scene. Listen to what she was saying, I mean really listen to the BS she was spewing. The Greens had just stolen her throne and demanded she give up without a fight. Her father just died, Daemon is preparing a war. And she is about to throw everything away (including their lives as Daemon well knows) over a prophecy that is totally irrelevant to everything and anything (besides actually giving her reason to want the throne). 

See above. Also, the prophecy has been mentioned several times in show, and more specifically by Viserys to Rhaenyra, which shows that she does indeed think it crucial. She isn't just using it as an excuse to give up her claim, lol. Such an assertion is, once again, your interpretation and not supported by the show at all. Nor is Rhaenrya considering Otto's/Alicent's terms an indication that she is 'throwing' their lives away. In fact, the show took great pains to highlight that her reluctance to go to war is because she doesn't want needless death, whereas you seem to be claiming the opposite i.e. avoiding war means death for her and her family. How do you know this? If she accepted terms and bent the knee in book and show, how can you claim Aegon would still murder them all? This is entirely unsupported in canon and once again, needs a lot of reaching and theorising to claim. You can definitely do that, but you cannot assert you are 100% right because it is literally just your opinion. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The birth scene is meant to juxtapose Viserys and Aemma. Whereas Viserys chose the child over his wife, Daemon chose his wife over the child. A symbol of his love for her. 

I was referring to his conversations with Laena before the birth scene, as I made perfectly clear. Two conversations, both ending in a not-positive manner, because she kept saying she wanted to go back to Driftmark and have her baby there. It did a pretty straightforward job of showing Daemon didn't consider or give in to his wife's wishes. So this point is entirely irrelevant. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

His war buddy on the stepstones. They were of a single mind (versus Vaemond) and helped each other win the battle. The time skips give little room to develop relationships, but him coming up with a contrived way to make sure Laenor lives shows he does not want to get him killed (and for Daemon 'killing' is the moral standard). He obviously has some feelings for the guy that he goes out of his way like this. 

And? He didn't outright murder Laenor, which means he's a... saint?? Lol. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Not when I watched it. I absolutely saw scenes of them together. Either way, having a selfish or violent nature that is aloof doesn't mean he doesn't love others, he just has a hard time expressing himself. When push comes to shove however he puts their interests above his own. 

That tension was between Rhaenya's authority and his. Jace was just a proxy for Rhaenyra.

According to you - unsupported by the actual show. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

A lot of that love is pure conjecture. There is more to Daemon and Laena (like how he would rather give up all claims to power so he can live happily with her in domesticity). 

Again, purely your interpretation. I saw his exile to Pentos as being driven by the fact that Viserys basically kicked him out of KL, and didn't engage with him at Rhae's wedding. He didn't give up any claim to power - Viserys effectively stripped him off it, and his remaining choice was to leave. There was an element of anger and sulking - imo - to his stubborn insistence to Laena that they remain in Pentos. Exactly the same trait which was highlighted at the funeral during his interaction with Viserys where he stubbornly declared that Pentos was his home. It is abundantly obvious by Visery's tone of voice when he says 'Daemon' in response that he knows this too, that Daemon is being stubborn. And as I've said, if Daemon cared for Laena's happiness, he would've agreed to go back to Driftmark when she wanted to. This is kind of how stuff works, btw: open to subjective individual interpretation to an extent, which is fine. It certainly doesn't follow that one labels differing subjective views as 'wrong'. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The exchange as a child was about his dedication to her cause (war). But really, what do we know about his love for her when he is the one wishing his own brother dead so that he might sit on the iron throne. Daemon puts the needs of his allies ahead of himself, Aemond just wants power for himself. The fact that Alicent would be horrified by such a thing doesn't bother him, or that her wishes are counter to that. 

In reference to people who believe Rhaenyra isn't completely white-washed, and yeah I think those people have their heads stuck in the sand. As well as people who insist Alicent is a nuanced character, those people too have their heads stuck in the sand. 

Sure, you have every right to your opinion. It is just that, your opinion, not objective fact, is my point. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The only defense people can muster is to say "that is how they were in the book" which despite not really being much of a defense, ignores how little of these characters we had to go off of due to not understanding their motivations or culpabilities for a number of crimes.  

I could turn this right around on you - your anger about one side being whitewashed and the other blackened is also based off the book, yes? If not, it seems it is merely your personal preference that both sides be somehow portrayed equally good or bad, and also your personal opinion that this is the only way to create 'nuance'. For instance, a lot of watchers might think showing Aemond as not being a completely evil murderous monster is showing 'nuance' - showing Aegon as shunning power out of a sense of shitty self worth because of his dad's attitude toward him is 'nuance'. Yet to you, these examples don't seem to cut it and you dismiss them as something along the lines of 'Aegon is evil so who cares why he is that way' whereas a lot of excellent drama in the last couple of decades has done exactly this: showed why people are flawed. 

22 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Or like some who say Rhaenyra and Alicent didn't have a rivalry in the book, which is just... I don't even know what to say to that. 

CHARACTER, not characters. And I made a lengthy post explaining how pointless Alicent's motivations are, if you want you can read it. Though I think you have elsewise you wouldn't mention it. 

Yeah, I read it and found it bemusing, to say the least. It seemed to be founded on a shit-ton of assumptions, inferences and reaching. Thing is, various people have engaged with you throughout the thread and you have not conceded a single, tiny point to any one of a variety of posters. You won't change your mind no matter what, it seems to me. So it's rather pointless. But then, did anyone ever change anyone's mind online? :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The show has been so singularly focused on one family so far that I wonder if they’ll branch out next season, or if they’ll try to keep the scope narrow throughout the rest of the war. They way they’ve left out the supporting characters so far (even Borros’ role was greatly reduced) makes me think that they’ll try to keep it more focused—especially since HOTD is artsier than GOT—but that’s going to make the battles at least a pretty big challenge. I think it was Peter Jackson who said that battles only connect with the audience if they care about specific participants. Otherwise it’s just extras hitting each other with sticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remembered another time Aemond defended Alicent. When Viserys interrogated him about who told his his nephews were bastards, Aemond hesitated and the camera panned to Alicent, implying it was her. Instead, Aemond told him that it was Aegon. 

As someone who spends way too much time looking at fanart, the number of Aemond artworks have increased significantly during the past week or two. There’s definitely a Daemon vs. Aemond fandom war brewing haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

This is, again, conjecture based on your personal interpretation. Your framing is not consistent. For instance, you equate Daemon caring about his family with him being presented as above reproach and perfect, yet when people mention in-show evidence of Aemond caring about his mother and sister, you dismiss this as him having nefarious ulterior motives that are completely absent from the show, to support your overall assertion that the show has 'whitewashed' the Blacks and horribly maligned and caricatured the Greens. 

With Helaena he hasn't had much screen time, but look at how there is a discrepancy between what the show wants us to think and how his actions affect those he supposedly loves. 

With Daemon, it is not simply trinkets or signs of affection he offers Rhaenyra, it is the narrative choice to support her claim above his own and destroy the enemies that stand in her way. Minus the choking scene (we'll get to that) he doesn't kill anyone who might negatively affect her emotionally or politically, and is only ever supportive of her cause. 

With Aemond, who claims to love his mother and yet actively seeks the downfall of his brother, you could see how that would adversely affect both Helaena and Alicent. His love, besides not being given much screen time to develop, has no reflection on how he pursues his own goals or in fact what those goals are.   

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

Except all this does is  highlight your own bias, which makes you amplify anything 'good' Daemon might do, and ignore anything 'bad' he has clearly done, whilst applying the exact opposite filter to Aemond. Where, for instance, the vast majority of the audience might see Aemond's lack of murderous intent toward Lucerys as humanising him, you would probably dismiss that as being 'stupid'. 

Do you know what's incredibly funny? In this very thread I made a post where I said I like the change they made to show the murder as an accident. It went a long way to make him less cartoonish and even added a tint of irony. If you had read that you might not being throwing around these empty judgment calls. 

But in the end of the day, Aemond still wanted to do something fundamentally bad which was terrify Lucerys, a child framed as sweet and innocent in this encounter (as influenced by his mother). Daemon, when harming actual characters in the narrative like Otto, Criston, or Vaemond does so in service of some morally sympathetic goal, which is to always promote our hero Rhaenyra. 

Aemond harms people we love. After some semblance of peace is made at the dinner table he is the one that aggravates tensions, and not for sake of his mother, or his sister, or anyone but himself. He hurts people to benefit himself which is counter to Daemon who does the same thing for others. 

The only exceptions are when Daemon kills people irrelevant to the narrative and which is given no emotional or political fallout. It's not that he is portrayed as a saint (that is Rhaenyra), it is that his supposed evil, while communicated to the audience, is used more to stylize his character rather than add any conflicting notion to his motives. His motives, which are to protect Viserys and Rhaenyra is as one with the audience so anything bad he does which doesn't even have a ripple affect is stylistic more than substantive. 

Meanwhile Aemond's selfish attitude neither gives him sympathetic goals, and his crimes have severe emotional consequences the audience is made to sit with and not just laugh at.  

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

If that is not bias, I don't know what is. In summary, you ignore Daemon's bad deeds to fixate on his good ones, and do the opposite with the Greens, whilst categorising their good qualities as evidence of deceit, poor writing or mental illness.  

But I don't ignore his bad. I acknowledge his bad deeds and then say they are made to give him edginess while having minimal affect on his overall role in the narrative making it easy for viewers to follow along with his motives and assertions. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

See above. Also, the prophecy has been mentioned several times in show, and more specifically by Viserys to Rhaenyra, which shows that she does indeed think it crucial.

Crucial because she must sit on the throne. If she thought it was crucial to maintain she would not abstain from ruling. The prophecy only holds merit if the family in question has the power to respond. The only reason she says this (as it is completely out of character in so many ways) is to make her seem so pure and forgiving that she actually considers not attacking the Greens for treason (similar to the teachings of Jesus). 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

She isn't just using it as an excuse to give up her claim, lol. Such an assertion is, once again, your interpretation and not supported by the show at all. Nor is Rhaenrya considering Otto's/Alicent's terms an indication that she is 'throwing' their lives away. 

She's not because she doesn't believe it. She never intended to give up the throne because she has no reason to. 

1. Rhaenyra has for decades prepared her children to rule 

2. Rhaenyra has never expressed the desire or the potential desire to passed down on the line of succession  

3. The prophecy and the maintaining of that prophecy acts as motivation for her to be on the throne 

4. The love for her father motivates her to be on the throne 

Again (and this is a fault of the show) she is given no reason to not want it. It removes from her character a lot of internal conflict but regardless the first time in her life she shows hesitancy is when:  Her best friend and her most hated enemy (Otto) steal what is rightfully hers for no reason at all (from her viewpoint) besides greed. 

Does that not light a fire beneath her? Does that not make her angry? Does she not even consider the potential Otto may want her children dead? 

Any of those reactions would be in-character. But they showed her reluctance not to signify a character motivation that will develop throughout the plot, but as an irrelevant aside to depict her as being the ultimate force of biblical good. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

In fact, the show took great pains to highlight that her reluctance to go to war is because she doesn't want needless death, whereas you seem to be claiming the opposite i.e. avoiding war means death for her and her family.

Reluctance to go to war and reluctance to push her claim are two different things. She has no reason then and there to give up. And she doesn't give up, that scene could be deleted and it would have no baring on the plot or narrative. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

How do you know this? If she accepted terms and bent the knee in book and show, how can you claim Aegon would still murder them all?  

Look at it from Daemon's perspective. He thinks (correctly) these are people who are a fundamentally evil. So when he hears Rhaenyra at this critical moment thinking to lay down arms (even though they have the capacity to fight) it makes perfect sense for him to think she has gone crazy. 

Because the character he has been protecting and promoting for nine episodes is gone, replaced by this stock figure meant to argue something outside the scope of this narrative and its characterization. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

I was referring to his conversations with Laena before the birth scene, as I made perfectly clear. Two conversations, both ending in a not-positive manner, because she kept saying she wanted to go back to Driftmark and have her baby there. It did a pretty straightforward job of showing Daemon didn't consider or give in to his wife's wishes. So this point is entirely irrelevant.  

Not so that she might suffer. It was not about cruelty against her, but his unwillingness to return to Westeros. And he, despite his selfishness, does prove his love by choosing his wife over the baby in the end. 

Daemon no doubt has selfishness. He has violence, he has villainy. But it is never used to undermine the love he feels for the people he is committed to guarding and aiding. And because he does that for the generic team hero (Blacks) none of his actions have repercussions.  

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

And? He didn't outright murder Laenor, which means he's a... saint?? Lol.  

He is not a saint. But there is enough to suggest he had fondness for Laenor. They were war buddies and in a situation that required his death he found a way to both help Rhaenyra and giving his friend a happy ending. 

Of course a friendship was not well developed but I put that up to time skips. Again, compare that to Aemond. We are told he loves people and then he makes narrative decisions that don't take into consideration those people's well being. Meanwhile, Daemon puts into consideration everyone he loves when making a narrative choice. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

According to you - unsupported by the actual show.  

According to the scene. He wants to begin war plans and is cut off not by Jace, but by the authority of his queen. If you want to believe there is tension between him and Jace, that is something of your own supposition. Not something ever developed on screen by the show. It then leads to the choking scene (he doesn't choke Jace, he chokes Rhaenyra).

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

Again, purely your interpretation. I saw his exile to Pentos as being driven by the fact that Viserys basically kicked him out of KL, and didn't engage with him at Rhae's wedding. He didn't give up any claim to power - Viserys effectively stripped him off it, and his remaining choice was to leave. There was an element of anger and sulking - imo - to his stubborn insistence to Laena that they remain in Pentos. Exactly the same trait which was highlighted at the funeral during his interaction with Viserys where he stubbornly declared that Pentos was his home. It is abundantly obvious by Visery's tone of voice when he says 'Daemon' in response that he knows this too, that Daemon is being stubborn. 

Yeah, Daemon wants the approval of his brother. But he never takes action available to him to build up political power (in the Stepstones, or Driftmark, or Pentos) to oppose the king. He just mopes around before once again joining the fray and doing epic stuff like helping Viserys onto his throne while the music swells and we (the audience) are made to cheer. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

And as I've said, if Daemon cared for Laena's happiness, he would've agreed to go back to Driftmark when she wanted to. This is kind of how stuff works, btw: open to subjective individual interpretation to an extent, which is fine. It certainly doesn't follow that one labels differing subjective views as 'wrong'.  

That's a nice subjective opinion. He certainly, in this one occasion, put his own feelings above Laena's happiness. But given how much love and support she shows him, we are hardly given a reason to believe Daemon never indulged her happiness. 

But even if he puts his own grief above her joy, he loved her elsewise he would not choose her life over that of the child. He is an edgy character, not a stuffed animal. But when push comes to shove he is a one their side.

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

Sure, you have every right to your opinion. It is just that, your opinion, not objective fact, is my point.  

It is a fact Daemon, as concerns the narrative, puts the political position of his allies above himself. You can say he does that for the wrong reasons, but he (in this narrative) objectively does that. He does not oppose his brother's power when he has the capacity to do so, and he doesn't oppose Rhaenyra's claim when he is more than able to do so. He puts their position above himself. 

Aemond doesn't do that. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

I could turn this right around on you - your anger 

I'm not angry, that is your supposition. 

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

about one side being whitewashed and the other blackened is also based off the book, yes? If not, it seems it is merely your personal preference that both sides be somehow portrayed equally good or bad, and also your personal opinion that this is the only way to create 'nuance'. 

The book did not have much nuance due to a lack of motivations divulged to the reader. We were shown acts of cruelty by both sides and left to interpret the rest. It was the show's job to add nuance to the narrative, and it was the show that decided (for creative purposes) to frame the Black's actions in the book as morally justifiable and the Greens actions in the book as morally unjustifiable.  

Without any real moral claim the Greens come off as basic villains and the Blacks, with too many motivations, lack any serious internal conflict. Which brings up the question, why makes this into a duel narrative at all if you don't want to add complexity to the conflict at hand?

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

For instance, a lot of watchers might think showing Aemond as not being a completely evil murderous monster is showing 'nuance' - showing Aegon as shunning power out of a sense of shitty self worth because of his dad's attitude toward him is 'nuance'. 

Yeah, for their characters. But their actions in the narrative don't take those into account. Aegon may not want power but he still seizes it. Aemond may not want to murder but he still murders. The point is the reluctance, rather than add nuance to the conflict, makes it more stupid because the Greens are given no reason for their action. 

They know something is bad and they do that bad thing anyway isn't offering them moral reasons, its giving them more reasons to not fight in this war.  

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

Yet to you, these examples don't seem to cut it and you dismiss them as something along the lines of 'Aegon is evil so who cares why he is that way' whereas a lot of excellent drama in the last couple of decades has done exactly this: showed why people are flawed.  

I did like Aegon's reluctance for the throne and Aemond's reluctance to kill Lucerys. But they are impossible to explore since their implications in the narrative are either minimal or function to make their actions more repugnant. 

The first five episodes did a good job showing how two sides might end up in conflict whereas these episodes just gave the Greens every reason to not do it and the Blacks every reason to enforce their claim.  

1 hour ago, Crixus said:

Yeah, I read it and found it bemusing, to say the least. It seemed to be founded on a shit-ton of assumptions, inferences and reaching. Thing is, various people have engaged with you throughout the thread and you have not conceded a single, tiny point to any one of a variety of posters. You won't change your mind no matter what, it seems to me. So it's rather pointless. But then, did anyone ever change anyone's mind online? :P 

You can't get out from under this fact. They wanted to give Alicent motive and they couldn't do it. They wanted to show her concern for the lives of her children and failed. So they made it about jealousy and that too failed. So they made it about honoring the words of Viserys. 

And that too fails, because it is Alicent assigning herself the role of dutiful wife when her entire vendetta against Rhaenyra required her to be an undutiful wife. 

Edited by butterweedstrover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

With some hindsight now, I’d say that both HOTD and ROP had okay premieres, struggled through the middle, and finished with strong finales.

John Campea is absolutely fawning over HOTD, says that it was better than GoT season 1. Although he is one of the few who think that GoT got better every season, with season 8 being the best one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

John Campea is absolutely fawning over HOTD, says that it was better than GoT season 1. Although he is one of the few who think that GoT got better every season, with season 8 being the best one.

Well, we know what bin to put his opinion in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

John Campea is absolutely fawning over HOTD, says that it was better than GoT season 1. Although he is one of the few who think that GoT got better every season, with season 8 being the best one.

I mean, he also said that Man of Steel was a masterpiece, right?

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...