Jump to content

[Spoilers] Episode 110 Discussion


Ran
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ran said:

It's not that the child was stillborn. It's that it was an abomination -- it had the stub of a tail and its back and head were mottled with what looked like half-formed black scales. For some reason they tried to play it ambiguously on the show, but apparently a line of High Valyrian dialog that was written but went unused was explicit that the baby was deformed.

That’s… that’s just not something you would know from the show. Now I rewatched it I can read into it because you told me, but without the background info it just looked like a bad prop purposely shot in an ambiguous way. Very interesting choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

That’s… that’s just not something you would know from the show. Now I rewatched it I can read into it because you told me, but without the background info it just looked like a bad prop purposely shot in an ambiguous way. Very interesting choice. 

Yeah, I'm not sure why they left it so ambiguous while leaving reactions that are less so. I think maybe they were responding to critiques from the first episode, perhaps, and decided they wanted to pull back on the body horror? I don't know really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Yeah, I'm not sure why they left it so ambiguous while leaving reactions that are less so. I think maybe they were responding to critiques from the first episode, perhaps, and decided they wanted to pull back on the body horror? I don't know really.

I can’t say that scene did much to shy away from gore, but it’s plausible that post production decisions played a part in it. It kinda brings me back to my original point that you don’t need more than one birth scene per person per season. You can just cut to burning the wrapped body from the labor and for once tell instead of (vaguely) show. It’s tasteful, clear and you can still convey the emotional impact with shots of Rhaenyra. Weird choice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

We’ve got a decade of this ahead of us, friends :bawl:

59 minutes ago, Lady Anna said:

Truly being offline is probably the best choice with this show.

I agree with Lady Anna.  It's pretty easy to just simply ignore the the social media whining if you want to.  You don't even have to be "offline," just off Twitter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

so the whole song of ice and fire thing is, along with the white worm lady friend, much like fetch. You need to stop trying to make it happen. The Rhaenyra actor couldn’t even say it with a straight face. The scene didn’t make any sense and daemon’s reaction was such a wtf moment.

I've generally been really critical of them bootstrapping in the asoiaf prophecy, but as I said earlier I actually liked its use in this scene because it enhanced the characterization and the plot.  It makes sense that Viserys wouldn't have trusted Daemon with this secret-of-secrets.  It makes sense that it would inform Rhaenyra's initial reluctance - which is frankly a significant departure from the books.  And it certainly makes sense that being kept in the dark would royally piss Daemon off.  Moreover, it aides in explaining the developing rift between Rhaenyra and Daemon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We now have some viewership numbers:

Quote

While final numbers aren’t in yet, HBO says episodes of House of the Dragon have averaged 29 million U.S. viewers each week so far across linear and digital platforms, easily making it the most-watched series from the network since Game of Thrones signed off in 2019. Dragon has already surpassed the tune-in for season two of Euphoria (19.5 million), and it’s closing in on the numbers Thrones drew with its penultimate season (33 million). Dragon could theoretically close some of the gap with GoT season seven within the next few weeks, too, since HBO typically keeps tallying viewership several weeks after a show’s finale in order to capture viewers who opt to binge full seasons. (One record that seems safe from Dragon’s fire, however, is that of the final season of Thrones. It attracted an estimated 46 million viewers per episode.)

Quote

What’s more, HBO says that in the 63 European, Latin American, and Southeast Asian countries where Max or HBO Go are available, Dragon is actually outperforming the eighth season of Game of Thrones and now ranks as the most-viewed HBO title in those countries. It did not release specific viewership numbers for those markets.

https://www.vulture.com/2022/10/hbo-dragon-bet-paid-off.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BlackLightning said:

Not too much on Man of Steel.

It is the best Superman movie by far, in my opinion. One of my favorite movies of the superhero genre too.

Agreed. The movie is almost a decade old and still looks fantastic.

 

By the way, here's Martin talking for 15 minutes about HOTD and the finale. The video has just been released: 

George R. R. Martin's Thoughts on HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, from Penguin Random House 

Edited by Ingelheim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ingelheim said:

By the way, here's Martin talking for 15 minutes about HOTD and the finale. The video has just been released: 

George R. R. Martin's Thoughts on HOUSE OF THE DRAGON, from Penguin Random House 

Interesting Martin wanted to start the show depicting the friendship/rivalry between Aemon and Baelon and then the former's death and decision to make Baelon heir instead of Rhaenys.  Add in the Great Council and they maybe coulda done that in a couple episodes as an extended prologue, maybe even one near-film-length ep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

The king certainly influences the the nobility. But he does not (or at least, not exclusively) set their dispositions  or preferences. He is as much influenced by them as they are by him.

The kings morals are more or less his own. He would be influenced by his parents, his family, and, especially, his tutors at a young age. What the Realm at large thinks and believes wouldn't reach him all that much, since a future king usually grows up at court, meaning he doesn't interact much with the nobility of the larger Realm.

Whatever wards and courtiers would live at court would completely submit to the ruling morality at the court if they want to stay there and gain and keep the ruling king's favor.

As Daemon succinctly tells his brother in the show: You are the Dragon. You can do whatever the hell you want. The only thing limiting you is your own imagination, the walls in your own head.

If Viserys wanted to watch Rhaenyra fuck a hundred publicly during a court session then this would happen and people would applaud and mimic such frolics. Such is the power of the Targaryen kings in that era.

You see how the most powerful non-royal lord in the Realm, Jason Lannister, starts to stutter and stammer when he realizes he has displeased the king.

Up until Maegor and Jaehaerys, the Faith and their morals had some real power over the Targaryens. They had to pay lip service to them, felt the real need to placate them, to not antagonize them, because they had too much influences over the masses.

But when Maegor and Jaehaerys broke the Faith this all but disappears.

Which is also why we should interpret Baelor the Blessed not as a weak king being ruled by the Faith and its doctrines ... but rather as a Targaryen king who, in his piety, took over the Faith and ruled them as much as the Seven Kingdoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

They could have easily opted for not having Daemon kill neither Rhea nor Laenor. There shouldn't be a murder quota to reach.

If Daemon murdered nobody he wouldn't be who he is. They cannot pin everything on Larys or 'evil Hightowers'.

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

That said, I think it would have been much better to have him kill Laenor than Rhea. There would be a clearer motivation, and it would have spared us from both the contrieved fake murder plot and the future complications surrounding Seasmoke.

While I certainly agree that Laenor should have died, I actually think Laenor's murder instigated by Daemon would be a much worse betrayal and crime than murdering Rhea Royce. Rhea and Daemon are not *really* husband and wife. In the show, the marriage was never consummated, and they apparently lived together only for a very short time a very long time ago. Ditto in the book.

Laenor, on the other hand, is Daemon's brother-in-law, his nephew-by-marriage, and his cousin through Aemon and Rhaenys. Daemon also happens to live under the roof of Laenor's parents at the time of Laenor's death. They are all family, and Daemon was long intimately connected with Lord Corlys and, presumably, also Princess Rhaenys. If Daemon had the guy murdered he is a real asshole.

With Rhea we can say she meant little and less to him, meaning that, in turn, it was no big betrayal since he wasn't exactly closely related or friends with her family.

Rhaenyra and the Velaryons are different.

The show quite correctly raises the issue that if people suspected that Daemon was behind Laenor's death then Rhaenyra would be a suspect, too. She profited from his death for the same reason as Daemon.

That the Velaryons apparently don't suspect foul play from Daemon and/or Rhaenyra in the book is a real flaw of the book - something that only makes sense if the notion that Daemon had his hand in this was truly an outlandish Mushroomism and Corlys or Rhaenys would never seriously entertain such an idea. The show trying to address this issue makes sense ... but the execution there was done very poorly.

There is no chance that Corlys/Rhaenys would want to keep Rhaenyra's bastards as heirs or support her in a future struggle if they believed Rhaenyra/Daemon may have been involved there. Instead they would gravitate towards the Greens. More importantly, Rhaenyra/Daemon would have told Rhaenys/Corlys that their son was not, in fact, dead to regain their support. They would be utter morons to fake Laenor's death without having the means to prove that they faked his death.

To make it work somewhat better we should have had one of the Velaryons - Rhaenys, say - believe that Laenor was murdered whilst Corlys believed in Daemon/Rhaenyra's innocence. This could also helped to explain why Corlys left Driftmark.

The best way to kill Laenor (or fake his death) would have been via a (genuine) accident scenario. Have a drunken Laenor get in a fight with Qarl on a boat and (seemingly) drown in the sea. If he is truly dead go with his corpse being washed ashore ... if not, then have him go overboard without ever showing up again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

HOTD lost a ton of viewers during the seventh episode. People were really attached to young Rhaenyra.

September 26-October 2 was Hurricane Ian week.  I imagine viewership was generally down, at least for entertainment shows.

36 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

(Also, who knew that a Jeffrey Dahmer biopic would be the breakout hit of 2022?)

Ryan Murphy is the television equivalent of a great crack dealer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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. 

Support her claim above his own??? When did he have a claim, past the moment Viserys named his heir? Obviously he would support Rhae's claim now, who happens to be his wife. Or did you expect him to support Aegon?? The fight is between Rhae and Aegon, wtf does Daemon's claim come in? You're making it sound like this was a real option when in fact it obviously is not. Honestly, this is beyond bizarre. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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.

'You could see how'. In other words, conjecture, hypothesis, your supposition. Not in-show. Hell. one could as easily argue Helaena and Alicent would welcome this because Aegon is a little shit whom they both seem to dislike. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

 

   

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. 

Sorry, I must have missed that tiny positive detail amidst the many lengthy posts you've been making deriding the show. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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 kills Lucerys deliberately in the show. Are you suggesting the show throw book canon out entirely, especially something as significant as this that starts the real war? That sounds like you don't like the story as written by Martin, in which case perhaps you should go to the F&B book thread and rant there. Because Luke was portrayed as an innocent young kid there too and readers are clearly meant to sympathise, as any sane person would at the death of a child. As for your entire assertion about 'morally sympathetic' Daemon, once again, this is you projecting your bias on a character that has been shown to do vile stuff. It's the exact same point I have already made: you dismiss Daemon's bad actions as being irrelevant, which is objectively wrong and verging on hilarious. They might be irrelevant to you, but not a lot of other viewers, and you don't get to pretend otherwise. Your opinion isn't magically fact. I think I said this to you earlier; you seem to be overly upset about the fact that a lot of fans like the character, and are conflating people's admiration for Matt Smith with writers'  imaginary sinister motives to lionise Daemon. When in fact they've cut several 'good' scenes for the character, such as him comforting his daughters after Laena's death. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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. 

He is an asshole in the book, dude. Much more than in the show, which indicates the writers are essentially trying to lessen the 'good/bad' dichotomy, otherwise wtf wouldn't they just use book stuff as is? But I guess this doesn't go well with your head canon that the show has made the Blacks saints and the Greens satan. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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. 

Utter bollocks. Daemon does good and bad shit in the books, and in show. All this stuff around 'stylistic vs substantive' is mostly you grasping for rational reasons to back up your views, and sorry, but it lacks evidence and coherence. So the show communicates his evil, but it's 'stylistic'??? That is genuinely laughable. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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.  

Just like in the book, where he destroys the RIverlands and does other abhorrent shit! Who would've thought that an asshole in book would be portrayed as an asshole in show? If you're finding it so difficult now, wait till he crowns himself Regent. You should stop watching, is my advice. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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.

You don't ignore it, you just put your own spin on it. Which is cool, as long as you acknowledge it your own spin and not fact. I probably sound like a broken record, but read Daemon's characterisation in the book and the author's own view that he was reviled and loved in equal measure. But what does the creator of the entire universe know, amirite? He needs you to tell him. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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). 

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 

Except she never abstained from ruling in the show. At all, not once. What actually happens, instead, is that when faced by the prospect of a bloody war, she balks and hesitates. Which is, in fact, great characterisation because it adds layers to her, and is also realistic because not everyone is eager to rush into war. But I guess you wanted her to shriek like a banshee and start burning people? She isn't 'forgiving the Greens as Jesus' - lol, this is so fucking ridiculous a statement it genuinely made me laugh, so thanks. She is scared and uncertain. Have you ever been in a high stakes, dangerous situation and hesitated? Guess not. 

 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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? 

The potential deaths of her sons is the exact reason she hesitates. This is so obvious and logical that it doesn't bear discussion, imo. And I've already made this point but yet again, you are stretching beyond reason to 'make a point'. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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. 

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. 

The only way to push her claim is war. Like, are you seriously pretending the two are not related? Lol, ok. And please stop with the constant references to the bible and Jesus - it's verging on offensive. And it's bizarre. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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. 

Utter crap. The Rhae we have seen throughout is not some bloodthirsty aggressive one-note power hungry person. So her character hasn't changed. In fact, as per your logic she has been portrayed as Jesus since episode 6, so why are you now talking about the previous nine episodes?? You said she has been depicted as a saint since episode 6, so if that is the case how has her characterisation been changed in episode 10? Make up your mind, won't you? 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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.

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. 

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).

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. 

Supports his brother, like he did in the book!!!! Shocking. I won't bother responding to the rest, because it is largely incoherent. You admit he isn't a saint, you admit he's done bad shit, but somehow in your world, all that doesn't matter and should be ignored. No point arguing about this incoherent stance. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

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.

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. 

WTF would he ever have been in a position to oppose Viserys, the rightful acknowledged and accepted king??? This is utterly ludicrous. And once Rhae is heir, how exactly would he oppose her? Who would support him? And as for episode 10, he has no claim whatsoever.

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

Aemond doesn't do that. 

I'm not angry, that is your supposition. 

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.

Even in book, the Greens are the villains because they try to usurp the throne from the lawful heir. You cannot change that no matter how hard you try, sorry. 

15 hours ago, butterweedstrover said:

 

  

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?

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.  

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.  

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. 

We've been through variations of this and it is now beyond tedious. I love a good debate, but there has to be a semblance of fact and rationality involved. So I'm done, but you carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

I mean, hurricanes can't stop crackheads from getting their fix.  HotD, RoP, and Andor were all down.

Lotta crackheads out there then.

(How graphic is Dahmer BTW? I don’t know whether to give it a shot or not. Either way, it makes me miss Mindhunter). 

Edited by The Bard of Banefort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DMC said:

I've generally been really critical of them bootstrapping in the asoiaf prophecy, but as I said earlier I actually liked its use in this scene because it enhanced the characterization and the plot.  It makes sense that Viserys wouldn't have trusted Daemon with this secret-of-secrets.  It makes sense that it would inform Rhaenyra's initial reluctance - which is frankly a significant departure from the books.  And it certainly makes sense that being kept in the dark would royally piss Daemon off.  Moreover, it aides in explaining the developing rift between Rhaenyra and Daemon.

Yes I can see all that, though the show didn’t do much to establish that the Targaryens as a family were into prophecies, or that Daemon in particularly was or how high society at this point generally views prophecy. That groundwork is missing for me to see the credibility in Daemon’s reaction or the weight of the revelation to him. My impression had been that Viserys was a history geek and this prophecy is important to him but not much more than any other legend from ages ago. It may be different in the books but I certainly didn’t get the Rhaegar vibe out of anybody and so the scene felt unduly over the top. 

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...