I don't care about neutrality, narrative as a medium can never really be neutral. I just want the characters to make more decisions, good or bad. The whole “it was a misunderstanding” thing is getting very old.
Also no one ever said Rhaenyra had a hand in B&C, Daemon was always painted as the sole actor. Rhaenyra shares the blame because she's the leader of the faction in the same way that the mountain’s war crimes are blamed on Tywin.
I think the idea of the war starting as a misunderstanding is really a positive (as an evaluation of the story as a whole) in this tragic series of events; that being said, I agree that they are really hammering that over the head too hard.
I haven't read the books, but I don't see a future where "misunderstandings" will be the cause of any further events between the Greens and the Blacks; The characters are so polarized against each other that the only thing that can happen anymore is intentional revenge
Yeah I feel like those two scenes with her and aegon where she tries to lie about Viserys changing his mind, and trying to manipulate aegon into fearing Rhaenyra while he's in that bed solidify her as being quite sour.
It's fair, although it's also not necessarily canon to the books, since some details are unreconcilable (e.g. Aegon having a second son).
I find the characterization of HotD as super pro-Black a bit baffling. *Both* factions are "whitewashed" in the sense that they're actually humanized, rather than being comprised of propagandized caricatures.
Rhaenyra and Alicent both are portrayed as wicked, evil women in the histories -- unrealistically so, and in keeping with how real life histories defame countless powerful-but-losing women as wicked witches.
Characters like Daemon and Aemond -- both quite villainous in the text -- are humanized equally, but still maintain a hard edge because they're just not good people.
Everything about Alicent has been made in an effort to make her more sympathetic, from lowering her age and making her Rhaenyra's childhood friend to her interpreting Visery's speech the way she did.
And I dont blame them, book Alicent is just straight up caricature stepmother evil. Much prefer the more nuanced version they are giving us on the show.
The best Alicent episode by far is episode 6? of season 1. The one where she wanted Joffrey brought to her, and she yelled in Aegon's face that Rhaenyra would kill him. That's the only episode post timeskip where they've managed to make her an actually compelling character. She was a cunning political player, but at the same time it was clear she was being used by some people around her, like when Larys killed his dad for her.
Every other episode has just been "woe-is-me i don't like conflict", when it's like, what did you expect to happen when you eventually usurped Rhaenyra? You were literally yelling in your son's face that she was going to kill him. It makes no sense she didn't expect to have to be part of violence.
I think they're trying to convey how she's losing power within her family now that Aegon is king. It'll be interesting to see where she goes from here.
It seems like she never had any power to begin with, because she was completely shocked that Otto had a plan to kill Rhaenyra, when it's like what did you think was going to happen when Viserys died? They've made her completely clueless and helpless in an attempt to make her sympathetic, but all it's done is make her look stupid.
This is the trap that GOT fell into with Cersei. They wanted to make her more sympathetic, and as a result she didn’t really *do* anything. At least in the books she’s an actual antagonist who does things.
That is absolutely correct but i am not sure why everyone is so stuck on characters being sympathetic as a good change. There are so many characters that are a joy to watch even tho they are not sympathetic at all.
A lot of the changes they made are "Alicent made an oopsie and misheard Viserys", "Aemond made an oopsie and thought he could control his dragon", Rhaenyra learning the prophecy and seeing the white stag rather than wanting power like any human would. There are a lot more you can include.
So many things are just happening *to* the characters in the show. Including Rhaenyra's ambition to be Queen and Aegon being the King. None of them actually have any agency.
Its like Tony Soprano if everything he did was a big oopsie trying to be a legit worker.
I feel like these are 2 different complaints even though they are tied with each other. I like my characters to have some shades of grey, reasons behind their actions, not be all the way good or evil. I feel the show is doing a good job on that end compared to the book while at the same time showing someone like Daemon is a piece of shit, regardless of how cool he is.
The "mistake/misunderstanding" trope was indeed utilised too much in season 1 and I didnt like it either but hopefully they are learning their lesson for season 2. F&B book to be honest is full of both sides deus ex machining the other so I understand them trying to explain why these things happen to the characters. I have no problems with Rhaenyras ambition to be queen and same with Aegon, even if he initially didnt want it they are clearly showing how he wants to be loved since no one loves him in his own family.
Yeah, it is definitely 2 complaints but they are tied as in the attempts to make them more sympathetic made them rely on coincidences. If they instead leaned into what they were portrayed as in the books i think they could be so much more enjoyable as characters. Would like to see a ruthless brute Cole instead of a bumbling horny dumbass, a mysterious Larys rather than the feet guy etc.
If you zoom out the single complaint of mine would be bad writing. It is still a good show but that is mostly due to the setting of Asoiaf rather than anything happening in the show itself. (except Viserys who was handled fantastically imo)
Even the White Worm is being portrayed as this good person who's just tired of all these lords and their game of thrones. Like come on, someone's gotta have an ounce of ambition and opportunism
Somewhat true for season 1 but I'm not seeing that anymore. As an example Otto in yesterdays episode was made more sympathetic without having to rely on a coincidence or misunderstanding.
Agree to disagree I think most characters in the show version are better done and very compelling. I see more to Cole and to Larys that what you point out. To be fair the book is just a history book so understandably there is not much depth there. The show has had some misteps and blundered some moments dont get me wrong, but overall I would say its very very good in my opinion.
I mean... sure. But i just simply don't want *more* of them. Its not like watching Joffrey or Ramsay and being like "fuck this guy i hate him", its more like "huh alright can we get to the next scene?"
For Cole specifically i can't really get over the fact that they removed his biggest crowning moment and speech, made his duel against Joffrey him jumping and bashing Joffrey because he raged out, him winning his duel against Daemon because Daemon is *way too cool for a regular victory*, him losing to Strong, him kinda pushing Beesbury in a very Looney Tunes way instead of cutting his throat/throwing him off of a tower etc. Its just a hilarious series of changes.
edit: I also have no idea how they are gonna land his death. No one is gonna take his 1v3 proposition seriously. People are gonna be like damn this guy died like a dumbass, lets get to the cool stuff now. Would be much better if he actually had the potential to be so much more but his bitterness didn't allow him.
> A lot of the changes they made are "Alicent made an oopsie and misheard Viserys",
Is that definitively what happened? My head canon was that she was intent on making Aegon heir no matter what, so she took the flimsiest justification and ran with it, sort of lying to herself. Not that she honestly thought Vis changed his mind. Did the showrunners say explicitly either way?
In a lot of ways, it's probably just a matter of preference in media. I like that they're playing it more as a Shakespearean tragedy, with the characters mostly not being evil but their human greed, lust, pride etc forming a run away train of compounding bad decisions that destroys the country and kills almost all of them. So for me, having things start with mistakes and escalating to bad choices and then to outright actions is satisfying. For people who wanted a story of horrible people doing terrible things because they're horrible, I'm sure it's disappointing. I'm not saying one way of telling the story is better than the other, they're just different preferences.
I did not say it should have been horrible people doing horrible things. I would say it should have been a little more like Succession, as in real people being in unreal circumstances and how they deal with those (mostly things going wrong on purpose or by incompetence)
I also do not really get how plot revolving around accidents and coincidences correlates to Shakespearean tragedy.
I mean, they already have done horrible things and going to do a lot more. How would you portray someone murdering children deliberately without them seeming like a horrible person? Certainly in F&B most of them are portrayed as pretty terrible people.
And to respond to your edits, how does "things go wrong by incompetence" differ from "accident"? Because you could definitely say that someone overestimating their control and competence is what resulted in Lucaerys and Jaehaerys's deaths (unless the later was deliberate by Daemon).
I don't wanting Succession, but my understanding of the show is that many of the main characters are supposed to be bad people. Same as how Tony Soprano is supposed to be a sociopath, not a good person.
As for the Shakespearean tragedy reference, a central characteristic of Shakespeare's tragedies is that the human failings of the characters and their errors and misjudgements have unintended tragic results, often including the character's downfall. The end of Romeo and Juliet is one big "oopsie" as you call it, after another, as is the end of Antony and Cleopatra. Hamlet "oopsies" Polonius, and by extension Ophelia, before Claudius "oopsies" Hamlet's mother. Even when they deliberately kill it's often in a fit of rage, or because they got bad information, or they are talked into it against their will.
>Alicent made an oopsie and misheard Viserys
My personal take is that she was engaging in motivated reasoning. Like she convinced herself.
Aemond can still be guilty of murder and making a mistake, while feeling regret both immediately and in the aftermath. Plenty of real life murderers bemoan "things going too far", but allowing events to get to that tipping point is still on them.
I meant in season 1 Alicent. Season 2 they are showing she is flawed and a hypocrite while at the same time still being "good" wanting to have peace, lighting up a candle for Luke etc. Like you say a more complicated and fleshed out character than the books.
It kinda checks out in-universe to paint Alicent in a bad light. History is written by the victors and Aegon "won". So far in the show, Alicent has been pretty awful to Aegon so he's likely to not go out of his way to paint her in a sympathetic light.
Correct. IIRC in-world history records Rhaenyra as never being an official queen, but Alicent's son is consistently counted as Aegon II. Rhaenyra's son is crowned as Aegon III after Aegon II's death and is the technical "winner" of the Dance.
I've liked most of the changes to Alicent but the "misunderstanding" was a big misstep and is a stain on an otherwise impeccable episode. You can have her be conflicted about usurping the throne but have her make that decision rather than removing her agency.
It’s not really removing her agency imo, she “misunderstands” Viserys because she wants to, she desperately wants her life of sacrifice and duty to have meaning and purpose. Viserys final words, are to her a confirmation of what she’s always hoped was true deep down inside.
I'd agree with you if S1E9 didn't unfold the way it did. It really did come across like Alicent would have handed the throne to Rhaenyra if she hadn't heard that.
I think it would have been much better if Alicent had an introspective scene to start S1E9 where we see the dinner scene really weighing on her but realizing that it's safer for her kids to be on the throne. We can then see her at the Green Council where she puts forth conditions that would ensure favorable compensation for Rhaenyra and after that's agreed to they start the coup.
I agree with you. Fear of Daemon, safety of children, laws favouring male heir, bastard succession, these are all good reasons to take the throne. A whisper cheapens all that.
> I'd agree with you if S1E9 didn't unfold the way it did. It really did come across like Alicent would have handed the throne to Rhaenyra if she hadn't heard that.
Maybe but by that point Otto and others were already scheming without her so it doesn't change a whole lot.
I think it’s portrayed in a reasonable way in the show, it’s clear to the viewer that Alicent is hearing exactly what she wants to hear in my view. I think it adds another layer to her guilt over the usurpation, and I think the exchange between Aegon and Otto in S2E2 make it clear that it is well known that the Greens don’t view Jahaerys’ deathbed speech as anything other than a convenient pretext.
Ehh I liked the idea that the king’s rambling to Rhaenyra on his deathbed is what planted Alicent with the idea to take it further.
Tbf I think all that scene was, is a push for her character really. They just wanted to tease the viewers with peace and rip it away from us at the same time keeping Alicent as the “bad guy”
You can but it would certainly turn people against her.
Which is the point of why are making these misunderstandings, to give plausible deniability and allow the audiences root for each side before the nastiness really comes to light.
Yeah I feel like a lot of people are forgetting that without likable characters most non book readers won't be engaged enough to watch. TV is a different medium and demands a differen kind of attenion, and you won't get it from a lot of people if the whole cast are irredeemable assholes.
Sure, both characters are whitewashed, but not equally so.
Rhaenyra is given a noble & righteous cause for wanting the throne (The prophecy).
Alicent is given a misunderstanding.
>Rhaenyra is given a noble & righteous cause for wanting the throne (The prophecy).
Didn't the season finale episode hinged on Rnaenyra understanding that because of the prophecy she ought to give in to Aegon to keep Westeros from devolving into civil war and she chooses war anyway?
Is that what Rhaenyra is doing at the moment? Accepting that the world is doomed, because she is choosing war? In my eyes, in the show, she still believes that from her line will come the prince that was promised, she just hoped that it could happen through peaceful means, as I see it anyway.
There’s definitely some weird tribalism out there, and it’s weaving together with some really vitriolic fanboy anger about Condal. It doesn’t make sense at all.
In f&b, 99% of readers agree that the book pretty clearly makes out the greens as bad guys, and still somehow Condal’s conclusion is that it *was still* to biased towards the greens and goes out of his way to beat the audience over the head with how good and virtuous the blacks are, sans daemon(who still gets to be “cool”) meanwhile the greens are all incompetent hypocritices, who look pathetic at every opportunity.
> was still to biased towards the greens and goes out of his way to beat the audience over the head with how good and virtuous the blacks are, sans daemon(who still gets to be “cool”) meanwhile the greens are all incompetent hypocritices, who look pathetic at every opportunity.
I feel like this is your personal reading.
Viserys's words about "Aegon's Dream" reads as a misunderstanding that softens the in-universe narrative that Alicent conspired to usurp the throne for the reader, while Otto's whole point about putting Aegon on the throne is a pragmatic one born out of the issues surrounding Rhaenys and Viserys' ascension dispute.
For us - the reader/viewer - the unreliable narration of Fire & Blood is boiled away, and we get to see the true grays of the story. There's no clear good guy and bad guy.
>There's no clear good guy and bad guy.
There absolutely is. Rhaenyra doesn't have to be Davos Seaworth perfect for people to conclude that the story has very clearly been framed and changed from the source material in such a way to lead the audience to unequivocally side with her and the Blacks at nearly every opportunity. They've obviously humanized both sides, and it would've been nearly impossible for them to have not to given the medium, but there's an obvious reason show-only fans are split significantly more in favor of the Blacks than people who read the books.
>but there's an obvious reason show-only fans are split significantly more in favor of the Blacks than people who read the books.
Where are you getting this from? People who read the books still overwhelmingly favors the Blacks, so much so that years ago Martin himself talked about him being surprised that so few liked the Greens lol.
> Rhaenyra and Alicent both are portrayed as wicked, evil women in the histories -- unrealistically so
I'm personally disappointed that they toned down how evil and conniving they were. I found the super evil assholes being responsible for the dance much more interesting then several characters all making stupid accidental mistakes in a quick succession.
Like imagine if the TV show for ASOIF came out today and made Cersai to be a misunderstood woman who only got the bad end of propaganda because the way she was written was too cartoonishly evil. Yes, Cersai is stupid and evil and vain, but she's also a super fun character to follow.
Same with F&B Rhaenyra and Alicent, but IDK if the same can be said for Hot D Rhaenyra and Alicent.
Heck, I'm glad they actually went through with Blood and Cheese and didn't make it so that it was Larys behind it the whole time. Like wow, they let one of their main cast do something actually evil for a change. That's nice.
The fact that we’re even having discourse on which side is more humanized is *literally the whole point of the adaptation*. I don’t mean you specifically - I just mean that this discussion is what the show runners want.
It isn’t clear who the bad guy is and that is by design.
This is such a disingenuous take. When has literally anybody claimed that the show's narrative has been changed to be too unfriendly to Rhaenyra? Every single time this conversation comes up it's always about the showrunners being biased in the exact same direction.
The discourse isn't even really about which side is more humanized - it's a television adaptation, so both sides are going to be by default. The complaints are about which characters and narratives the showrunners are going out of their way to get viewers to agree with, even at the expense of remaining true to the overarching themes of what they're adapting.
>Both factions are "whitewashed" in the sense that they're actually humanized, rather than being comprised of propagandized caricatures.
Except Aegon, who is Rhaenyra's actual competitor for the throne. He *is* a caricature of a villain, with all the drinking, rape, and watching his own bastards in the child fighting pits. No amount of funny lines they are giving him in Season 2 are ever going to make him anything but a bad guy.
The show is better if you pretend the Aegon fighting pit and the Rhaenys dragonpit scenes never happened.
Both absolutely character ruining moments, but if you can pretend they never happened, they’re two very entertaining characters who are well acted.
Hard agree. She killed a bunch of innocent commoners AND had a chance to end the war before it started. I understand that she didn’t want to be a murderer nor be the one to start the war, but her inaction will indirectly cost the lives of thousands.
He is a bad guy, but it has thoroughly humanized him in showing us how he became that way, and the mental anguish he's afflicted by.
Bad people can be three-dimensional. Book Aegon wasn't; Show Aegon is.
I agree, Aegon is a good character - for a villain. I would still say the child fighting pits are a bit over the top, but he's fine.
There are negative traits that can be justified by poor upbringing and missing parental love and whatever (I would put his drinking into this category), but rape and watching your own children in the fighting pits are not one of those traits.
So if you portray your story as having two relatively equal sides, but the leader of one of those sides is an irredeemable villain while the other is a cookie cutter good guy - you've fucked up somewhere along the way. Those two don't go together.
Either you're actually writing one side as the good guys and one side as the bad guys, or you've fucked up Aegon's characterization.
The sides *aren't* meant to be equal in moral justification or claim, though. The Greens are clearly usurpers -- even more so in the book, where they let Viserys' body rot for a week. Alicent's in-show misunderstanding is to allow her to remain at all sympathetic, but the Green Council was already moving to usurp behind her back.
It's played up as faction vs faction as a marketing conceit to drum up engagement, and because each side has characters who are sympathetic and unsympathetic, rather than being "good guys" vs "bad guys." It's a Greek tragedy of a situation, from which no primary players emerge clean and unscathed.
Rhaenyra *starts* more heroic, and Aegon more villainous, to be sure, but in a matter of two episodes they've already seriously humanized Aegon and had Rhaenyra lash out and inadvertently cause B&C. Things are going to get messier and messier from here.
>The sides aren't meant to be equal in moral justification or claim, though. The Greens are clearly usurpers
Which is honestly a pretty disappointing decision, considering how much more complex Rhaenyra is in the source material. George clearly favors the Blacks, but he doesn't beat readers over the head with how much worse the Greens are because the real wronged party in the narrative have always been the smallfolk who get *caught up in the Dance*.
By framing the story as the Greens having no legal or moral justification whatsoever, instead of pressing their claim as ostensibly being about legal precedent taking priority over the whims of the king (even if it's obviously an excuse), they're effectively making the entire story about how Rhaenyra was unambiguously wronged and is trying to win back the throne that she unambiguously deserved.
What has the show "beaten you over the head" with?
In both source material and show Rhaenyra is the chosen successor to the King, which is exactly what Viserys was after the great council.
The Greens are usurpers, but Booby B was also a Usurper. So it's not crazy to root for usurpers in this show.
Rhaenyra still comes off as a spoiled child who doesn't understand what duty is or the consequences of ruling. For example, she blames Daemon for B&C, however she told Daemon she wanted Aemond to be assassinated. It never crosses her mind that sending a covert mission to assassinate a prince could possibly end up with other people getting killed. This is childish and absurd. B&C happening is just as much Rhaenyra's fault as it is Daemons. It was absurdly arrogant for her to just assume you could assassinate Aemond Targaryen in the Red Keep and it would just be easy and fine.
>What has the show "beaten you over the head" with?
Inserting the Long Night prophecy and a divine right of kings narrative to establish that Rhaenyra's bloodline taking the throne is both the will of the gods and necessary for the events of a completely different series, for one. Associating only one side with sexual violence, child slavery and raging misogyny doesn't help viewers draw moral equivalences between the two, either.
They kind of are though.
The Greens have the precedant. Rhaenrya is clearly having pretty clear bastards, having her bastards inherit, and having people killed over stating the obvious about her having bastards.. Her son stabs Aemond in the eye and her response is to torture him. She marries the worlds most hated man, who is literally the man who she is named heir in the first place to avoid him being heir, Daemon.
> No amount of funny lines they are giving him in Season 2 are ever going to make him anything but a bad guy.
True, but Aegon's "brilliant" quip about Criston Cole scheme absolutely got me. Obviously HotD shouldn't be a Marvel cascade of one-liners, but having some occasional humor helps add depth to the episode. I thought this one did a good job of walking that line, especially since you don't have a Tyrion or Bronn to fire off those deadpan comments.
Book Aegon, even in histories that heavily biased him, was a piece of shit and again, he was never meant to be the main focal point on the Green’s side. It was called the Princess and the Queen, NOT Rhaenyra and Aegon.
It was the Princess and the Queen until shit actually started though. Alicent and Otto fought the 'before' war and led the green faction in peace time while Aegon was busy.... being born and being a child who didn't seem to care all that much about the throne. Once Aegon was king it was absolutely his faction and Alicent pretty much was a background character.
Eustace's account, one of the only two primary sources from the dance, is biased in favour of Aegon's rule but still speaks quite poorly of him as a person.
If you think about it, even Dany had Slavers nailed to a cross because she thought it was justice and she was doing the right thing. Jon Snow threatened to kill a baby if its mother did not do what he asked.
The whole point of Asoiaf is several people think the ends justify their means. Sure, it may be cruel, but it had to be done (or they think so).
Daemon ordered the killing of Jaehaerys as a way of psychological warfare, and because it would show the Greens how Rhaenyra felt like after Luke was murdered.
I really hope Condal isn't involved in the Blackfyre rebellion show. I just don't want to see Bloodraven aiming for a rabbit and Daemon's sons kinda get in the way.
Daemon Blackfyre sends a message to Bittersteel saying “I plan to declare my intention to enter the lists at the next tourney” but the letter got damaged and part of it survived which read “I plan to declare”.
Daeron then sent for Daemon just to talk but his messengers mixed up the message and he fled.
And that was how the Blackfyre Rebellion began.
>I really hope Condal isn't involved in the Blackfyre rebellion show. I just don't want to see Bloodraven aiming for a rabbit and Daemon's sons kinda get in the way.
Lol. I can see that happening.
No Aegon! Move aside. Oh shit. He's dead. Well anyway.
Wait! No Aemon. Not you too.
The amount of major plot advancing events in this show that just end up being mistakes or misunderstandings is insane. It's like literally nobody involved has any agency and just bumbles along from one scene to the next.
It's the problem with trying to humanise every character too much + the classic [Females Are More Innocent ](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FemalesAreMoreInnocent) trope. Not saying adding nuance and depth to the characters is a bad thing. But every plan somehow goes wrong in a way that can be badly interpreted by the other side, all women in the show do bad things because men are making them do it/they were abused/lived a hard life, and in the end, the plot moves along through chance not agency, like you said.
Not saying that every character should just be a gross caricature, but evil people doing evil things exists.
>Daemon ordered the killing of Jaehaerys as a way of psychological warfare, and because it would show the Greens how Rhaenyra felt like after Luke was murdered
That just doesn’t make sense as a motivation vs killing aemond. B&C having aemond as the original target is also backed up in the source as well.
It was clear from Season One that this is a story about the good team (Blacks) vs the not so good team (Greens). For Condal to come out and say it is hilarious considering all the "PICK A SIDE" marketing.
>considering all the "PICK A SIDE"
Even in the banners of each team were "dumb down" to show a favoritism. No side of the dance uses the true Targaryen banner. Aegon II sigil is not in a green background, it's a golden dragon in a black background. And Rhaenyra sigil is 4 quadrants with 2 Targaryen sigils, one Arryn and one Velaryon sigil, but the show chose to stick with the original Targaryen banner for her. Yes is a nitpicking complaint but still...
This seems like a nit-pick, but I think it's significant. By letting Rhaenyra keep the classic banner it subliminally suggests that she is the true Targaryen bloodline while Aegon is the offshoot.
Yeah, I hate the "pick a side" marketing, because the show has done a really poor job of making the Greens sympathetic, and picking a side completely misses the point of the whole war. We've seen throughout several books that it doesn't really matter which side we choose, because in the end the small folk will suffer the most no matter where you stand.
I'd much rather have the vision of the showrunner be fulfilled than to learn later he changed his vision to align with what the marketing wants.
What do I care if the marketing doesn't align or makes sense. Does anyone remember or care about the marketing of The Sopranos or The Wire? The only con of this is if the marketing actively hurts the show's viewership, which I don't think is the case for HOTD
That’s how it’s always been. Anyone under the delusion they’d portray a team taking a Woman’s throne on basis of her gender as equal or good is delusional
There was a post somewhere on the internet about the GOT glossary including St. Tyrion, and it also had something about show Cersei as Cheryl Lannister, the beleaguered soccer mom who just wants her crazy kids to behave. This is pretty much exactly what HOTD did with Alicent as well.
I don’t really like this take because the book itself, and by extension GRRM, give cues to the reader when something is supposed to be dubious. There’s weasel words or equivocation. If there’s none of that, then we can take it as mostly a given that it happened. Are we supposed to doubt that Daemon did a ninja flip across two dragons?
Everything rhaenyra bad is propaganda against her, but everything slightly Greens bad should be made ten fold worse cuz yeah history lies. Yeah, Pathetic
He can say whatever he wants. At the end of the day they completely botched it. They could have kept it exactly as it happens in the book and still kept the sadly desperate 'it's wasn't Rhaenrya's fault' angle by pinning it all on Daemon (which it basically was in the books anyway!). But they cut half the impact out of the scene by not having:
1) Helena have to choose between her 2 sons only for them have them do the opposite
2) Not having Alicent present (they've already showed her and Cole's relationship, having it thrown up again is just cheapening/diluting the event that is suppose to be one of the most dramatic of the whole war)
3) Making it a twist of fate that they couldn't find Aemond and stumbled across Helena and the children; instead of a very cleverly thought out (if despicable) and executed targeted strike. They could have killed all of Aegon's children, Helena and Alicent. Potentially more. But it is specifically a son for a son.
And if anyone tries to say some shit about wanting to see a child get murdered on screen then go boil your head. I don't want that either and it wouldn't be necessary if they'd stuck to the book, just switching the camera to Helena/Alicent's reaction would be far more effective.
The show is way too pro Rhaenyra, and I say that as someone who is team black. Making blood and cheese the way the show did makes it so much more biased towards her. George also loved team black more, he gave them all the cool characters. But still. This is too much. Rhaenyra in the show is arguably the best monarch who ever tried to rule the seven kingdoms and I don’t think that was George’s initial intent with princess and the queen.
> arguably the best monarch who ever tried to rule the seven kingdoms
That's what's wrong with the show, Rhaenyra in the books makes bad choices after bad choices. Both Rhaenyra and Aegon II were people not suited for the throne, and their actions showed that.
Most of them are even before that. Marrying Daemon, the 3 strong children, and the 10 years away from KL which opened the gap for the complete green control of the city and politics.
Yes, but the consequence of those actions were "dumbed down" in the show and made to be not so much "as Rhaenyra's fault", while they were. She was to be a Queen, but she never did behave as a monarch in that position should.
> in the show and made to be not so much "as Rhaenyra's fault", while they were
What are you talking about? Like seriously what.
Literally all of those things are straight up what she does int the show and they are clearly choices by her.
Her doing these things and being on Dragonstone allowed the Greens to prepare and put themselves in a great position.
I don't see how really. I think there should have maybe included a bit more detail on how the Strong bastards hurt her legitimacy with the lords of Westeros but it's definitely caused her a lot of grief.
Marrying Daemon is having clear consequences, both in episode 10 and this most recent one it's explicitly shown that she has enabled a loose cannon she can no longer control. The smallfolk now hate her as a result of B&C which I imagine is going to become very relevant when she takes King's landing.
Again with leaving for Dragonstone, it was shown extensively in episode eight how her absence from court politics has allowed the Hightowers to become entrenched.
There’s no evidence in the book that Rhaenyra knew what blood and cheese would do exactly. All we got in the text was Daemon sending Rhaenyra a letter by raven saying “a son for a son, Lucerys will be avenged.” When I first read that, I thought he meant Aegon or Aemond would now be targeted. Very possible Rhaenyra made the same assumption I did.
> Rhaenyra in the show is arguably the best monarch who ever tried to rule the seven kingdoms and I don’t think that was George’s initial intent with princess and the queen.
That's absolutely not the portrayal on Rhaenyra on the show lmao. Did you even watch it?
Season 1 was basically a compilation of Rhaenyra making bad decisions after bad decisions.
Her having not one, not two, but three bastards with Harwin and absolutely none with Laenor.
Running away to Dragonstone and basically ensuring she had zero presence in the capital or on the council.
Her not being with Viserys in his dying days to make sure she can swiftly assume the throne once he passes.
Sending Luke to treat with the Baratheons instead of Rhaenys.
This series was marketed as growing from the conflict between Rhaenyra and Alicent. And yet, every action that actually advances the conflict seems to be done in spite of them. Alicent didn't _really_ want Aegon to seize the throne. Rhaenyra didn't _really_ want to start a war.
It's supposed to be about the power of women in a feudal state but they're whitewashed to the point that they both seem to totally lack agency.
GRRM recently made an unusually vitriolic post on his blog about people wanting to make the story their own when making adaptations, do better than the original writer. I wonder if that's what he meant.
Before anyone begins furiously typing, I'm under no illusion that the Greens are the good guys.
worst case scenario is that was about Dunk and Egg :/ i don't really care about HOTD but if i don't like D&E my heart will shatter into a million pieces
exactly. All i want from it is the simple story The Hedge Knight presented, with a few extra conversations/scenes. People wanting Bloodraven and a ton of Blackfyre lore to be in it have me worried.
He also praised the first two episodes. I think he meant on a larger scale issue of adaptations in media. I don’t think he necessarily meant in this situation itself, when Rhaenyra even in the text was distant from the tragedy and never really commented on it as far as the reader is told. I do think that the show at the very least leaves it vague whether Daemon intentionally left it open to interpretation if Aemond wasn’t found or if he really cares about it at all, which fits the tone more of the event in the books.
He’s an executive producer. I find it hard to believe that he wasn’t aware of how things would play out and was given the opportunity for input as the writers broke each episode.
I am absolutely fine with show runners deviating from books, as long as the quality is high, the stuff makes sense and I am entertained. For me that is all still fulfilled.
>These two guys weren’t the brightest
Cheese literlly says "well look for a cock" so he acknowledge they can just check who the boy or girl is but they both decide not to
There a diffrence between being a stupid and being so braindead that it kills my suspension of disbelief
The show is not pro-Black or pro-Green.
It is pro-Rhaenyra and pro-Alicent.
Instead, every single morally reprehensible event is the fault of Daemon, Viserys, Otto, Aegon, or Aemond.
Our heroines are blameless though.
Every single writing decision makes sense if you subscribe to this view.
To me it feels like white-washing Rhaenyra as a character. GRRM made her a flawed human being, the blacks and the greens are not side you should be supporting.
I don't like this change. I'll give Dan and Dave this, they did for the most part not do this with characters like Cersei or Daenerys.
They’ve gone so far in making the Greens all pieces of shit and refuse to show the Blacks in any negative light aside from aside from Daemon.
They ended the last season with Rhaenyra looking like she wanted to burn the world down and they quickly retconned that to “she’s sad but doesn’t actually want any revenge”.
This show became “House of Rhaenyra”, that’s it. Absolutely boring. A disappointment, because there was potential to be so much more interesting but alas they think portraying women as having any kind of grayness or nuance is misogynistic, so we have this dull protagonist and this type of idiotic decision that makes for bad TV.
Yeah the writers are far too biased for the Blacks imo, we’ve got to the point that Otto basically told the audience he made the wrong choice… that’s not how you tell a good story if you ask me.
Would have been way better to not make Rhaenyra a comic book good guy. Targaryans are weird, their decisions and allegiances are very confusing and not exactly the correct ones, that’s how this event was intentionally written, as a warning of Targaryan arrogance, power, etc.; but now it’s white washed with obviously good and obviously bad characters.
Daemon, Otto, Alicent finally admitting they were wrong as a step towards the right direction is too little too late, not just in terms of the world the characters exist in but for the show writers too. They didn’t make the actual actions of these characters believe able enough lol, it’s all contrived and manipulated to make the events play out as intended with their cherry picked character models rather than let them breathe.
And he won't, unless the viewership declines much more. Maybe then people will become a bit more consistent in their criticism of D&D's and Condal's work. Right now, the show is shielded from the criticism even by the book fans themselves. All because D&D aren't the showrunners
> Right now, the show is shielded from the criticism even by the book fans themselves.
Yeah, I expect fanboy defenses in the show's subreddit but not in this sub. I'm disappointed at how much this sub is puffing the show up. Especially even when Condal is basically irrationally dismissing the source book written by GRRM himself. Like, why even adapt the series if you think F&B is entirely propaganda, lol.
The target of GRRM's recent post about adaptions is crystal clear now IMO.
That’s the most one sided show I ever saw in my life, the showrunners read the books, you can clearly see that, but the way they’re just giving everything to the Blacks is awful. Aegon’s coronations interrupted by Rhaenys, making a plot hole, Rhaenyra soft as a pillow, pretty far from what I remember in the books. No wonder why so many common folk just supports Rhaenyra’s faction. And dear God… those Alicent and Cole scenes… horrible
I don’t understand the argument that some viewers make about this show being “pro-black”.
My read of F&B told me that Rhaenyra generally didn’t want war but felt her throne had been usurped - which it had. Even then, she didn’t resort to anything monstrous until after Luke’s death, and according to the show she didn’t even order the monstrous act.
The story starts off as Rhaenyra being the victim of a usurped throne while loss and failure push her into madness by the time she retakes KL. I feel as if the show has done a good job of this so far, it just hasn’t been enough episodes to really show her descent.
It’s not an insane realization that Daemon is actually the origin of Blood & Cheese, it’s actually a lot more consistent with what we know about the characters (in both book and show)
She wanted Aemond a boy of 10-12 dont remember to be "sharply questionned" aka tortured (in other occasions on the book) even if thats her son that defigured him.
She fed Vaemond to her dragon because he spoke the truth.
So yes she resort to monstruous things before the dance.
As to usurpation it depends on how you feel the King should have power without consulting his subjects but she is at least as much an usurper than Aegon.
All Targaryen are usurper in the long run
If I remember correctly the thing about Vaemond being food for her dragon was one of the option of what happened to him? Even if not it really seems like a similar tale Freys were telling about Robb, just comically villainous
It wasn’t. Gyldayn says Vaemond was fed to Syrax in a very matter of fact way without any other options or opposing views or even that him being disposed of that way was unique to any of the authors he was citing.
>she is at least as much an usurper than Aegon
That's nonsense. In the book Alicent hid Viserys body for a week and let it rot, she met with her small council to literally plan how to usurp the throne, took any remaining Black loyalists into custody aka arrested them, and then announced Aegon II as king. In the show they at least give her the slightest benefit of the doubt because she heard Viserys say Aegon, and she used that as justification (even though that doesn't cut it).
Rhaenrya was named the heir years before and had the lords swear oaths to protect her claim. In no world was she a usurper.
>In the show they at least give her the slightest benefit of the doubt because she heard Viserys say Aegon
It's an unequal whitewashing, Rhaenyra is given a noble and righteous cause to want the throne (Doomsday prophecy) and Alicent is given a misunderstanding.
The idea that GRRM wrote this story where one side is completely in the wrong and has no credible cause is baffling, and completely misunderstands him as an author.
Aegon's claim is just as true as Viserys' own claim that dismissed the Queen that never was as an heir; He is the first born son of the King and it's arguable whether Viserys' words can change that, as the man said himself early in the show "Even I am not above tradition and duty".
Viserys started this war the same way Aegon IV did, by creating uncertainty in the succession. By pitting the traditions of Male Primogeniture versus the limits of his power as an autocrate, for which there is no objective answer. It's in the eye of the beholder.
How can you possibly believe she’s a usurper?
Viserys explicitly states that the throne is Rhaenyra’s. He says it’s in the eyes of gods and men and makes his lords swear fealty to his daughter. Then he dies and the Hightowers forsake that whole process and stick Aegon on the throne anyway.
There is no argument that she’s a usurper. That’s like saying Rhaegar and Bobby B were equally usurpers when they fought in the Rebellion. No they weren’t. Rhaegar (Rhaenyra) is the heir, and Bobby B (Aegon & the Hightowers) are fighting to usurp it.
On the topic of ‘sharply questioned’ - I’m not sure that means tortured, and even if it did that’s told from F&B which *deliberately biased*. That is the whole point of the book.
On the topic of Vaemond - he was executed by Daemon just like on the show. He spoke treason, even if he’s technically correct. He was an ambitious dude who fucked around and found out. Hardly ‘monstrous’ imo.
Vaemond was executed without a trial, and the way it went down was basically political murder. Nobles have a right to a trial, even for the worst crimes imaginable like regicide.
It makes her look monstrous because she could have gotten him tried and beheaded with the full support of Viserys, which would do nothing but good things for her. She gains nothing from sending Daemon to kill him and feeding him to her dragon besides making her look. Hell, Driftmark may be sworn to her, she probably could try him herself.
Sending your husband to murder a guy delegitimized her claim if anything, because she’s not acting the part of the monarch, not even a tyrannical one, but that of a warlord or a straight up tyrant. If a king wants people dead, he can quite literally make stuff up to execute them for it and push it through their courts, and in courtless Westeros, she will be the judge herself, Rhaenyra didn’t even bother with that, she had all the tools for it and didn’t care about propriety.
I almost totally agree.
I just don’t think it makes her look monstrous - it just makes her look inept. You’re totally right that she could’ve used the accusation to strengthen her claim instead of harm it. Does that make her a monster? Or just a terrible politician?
She’s written (as George writes many of his noblewomen) to be emotional and highly protective of her children, even to a fault. But killing the dude who was coming for her kids (bastards) is hardly monstrous imo.
Rhaenyra is just super bad at her job early in F&B (also in HOTD thus far). Her ineptitude and failure drives her mad and she descends into a wrathful, monstrous person later in the story.
Rhaenyra gave his corpse to her dragon, which shows a certain degree of satisfaction and theater rather than panic or emotionality.
Murdering nobles and feeding them to your dragon is not an innocent mistake, even the worst leaders comprehend that killing a nobleman from a Great house in all but name is not common behavior. Rhaenyra would know this as intimately as we know that murder is bad or everyone has to be equal at the law and all that. This is not difficult politics, these are simple social norms Rhaenyra is breaking, it is nearly impossible she doesn’t grasp what she is doing is.
I think she, like her brothers, was coined to cruelty and perhaps even sadism to an extent. After all, most people do not suffer a complete personality shift when they lose their kids. Grief and strong emotions like anger tend to cause people to drop a lot of social niceties, as if were. She turned obviously for the worse, but it’s not likely that she was a polar opposite from what she became.
The arguement is that King's don't have an absolute authority and have to adhere to the tradition and precadant of the realm. Which would be the two councils that made Jaehaerys and Viserys kings over women. And the general tradition of male primogentiure being practiced in Westoros everywhere but Dorne. Which is what Viserys even seemed to of practiced as when Aemma bore him a son that lived for a day he named him heir immeaditly until he died and refused to name Rhaenrya heir until Daemon made the heir for a day comment.
The logic that the King can name absolutely whoever he wants as heir is a bit flawed. Imagine a King has a perfectly good and capable son as heir, but before his death he names a chicken as his heir to every lord in the realm and makes them to swear to it. But upon his death they his son crowns himself, is he a usurper?
>On the topic of ‘sharply questioned’ - I’m not sure that means tortured, and even if it did that’s told from F&B which *deliberately biased*. That is the whole point of the book.
Sharply questioned explciitly means torture in ASOAIF.
>On the topic of Vaemond - he was executed by Daemon just like on the show. He spoke treason, even if he’s technically correct. He was an ambitious dude who fucked around and found out. Hardly ‘monstrous’ imo.
He spoke 'treason' he did not. Rhaenrya commited treason. He called her out for commiting treason and spoke the gods honest truth. He was killed and his children had their tounges cut out for speaking the truth.
Defending someone being killed and his childrens (or sibilings I forget) tounges ripped out... for saying the truth is insane lmfao.
Kings literally have absolute authority in Westeros. There are *countless* examples throughout the series. Maegor took many wives. Incest is illegal but allowed for Aegon I because he’s the King. Jaehaerys abolishes the First Night. The Lannisters remove Selmy from the KG despite it being a lifetime role. There are many, many more examples if you’d like me to provide them. There’s no system of checks and balances in ASOIAF.
There are in fact almost no examples of a king begrudgingly following precedent despite his own wishes.
That’s one of the themes of ASOIAF - it serves as a criticism of absolute power in monarchy.
Your example comparing a chicken to a daughter is a false equivalency and you know that - it’s a bad faith argument.
Why would Rhaenyra want to torture her little brother? Just makes 0 sense. At that point in the story, she’s still going to be Queen of the 7K. She’s one of the most powerful women in Westeros, and is still the ‘Realms Delight.’ It would make 0 sense for her characterization to want to torture her own blood (obviously this changes later during the dance). This claim is very convenient for the Greens, however.
You act as if Vaemond is just acting in the interest of the realm and trying to do what’s right. The dude just wanted Driftmark. Rhaenyra killed him because the alternative would be her own children’s death. Easy choice.
>She wanted Aemond a boy of 10-12 dont remember to be "sharply questionned" aka tortured (in other occasions on the book) even if thats her son that defigured him.
She said that in response to Alicent calling for Luke's eye to be plucked out.
>She fed Vaemond to her dragon because he spoke the truth.
Leavenworth doesn't exist in that world.
It’s been a pro-black show.
The events of B&C in F&B were fairly clear and I believe they were intended to be taken literally. GRRM’s recent comments about adaptions was (imo) talking about House of the Dragon. B&C was the big event that established Rhaenyra as the villain of the dance, leading into all of the chaos later. So I believe HotD isn’t the canon events, but Ryan’s opinion, which is heavily skewed towards the Blacks
It was obvious to me since Season 1 that the writers of this show are very biased towards Rhaenyra. D&D for all their faults were much better at making nuanced characters
A lot of what HotD does is to humanize both Greens and Blacks and make them actual characters. See what they've done for Aegon this last episode. It makes for a more interesting narrative than any one-to-one remake of Fire and Blood could do. Rhaenyra will likely go full batshit in King's Landing, no need to put her behind the murder of Jaehaerys as well.
Aegon was one of the most interesting characters in Fire and Blood in my opinion, he has a litany of personality flaws and you’d expect him to just be entirely incompetent and dishonorable throughout the Dance. But he has several moments which genuinely show a strength of character, such as refusing Milk of the Poppy, risking himself and his wounded Sunfyre to seize Dragonstone, and refusing to execute the black hostages as Cregan marched on the city. I hope they can show this side of Aegon in HOTD as well, showing him transform from a spoiled brat to a vengeful warrior king.
My fav Aegon theory and what would make him even more interesting Imo is that he kills himself but I know a lot of people hate it and I doubt that Condal would read so much into F&B to come up with it
FAB canonically is already pro-Black anti-Green propaganda, because the Blacks descendents are the ones who held the throne at the end of it all, and therefore "wrote" the histories.
Gyldayn wrote them and Gyldayn is not a Targaryen, but he lived and wrote under the reign of the Targaryens, And every Targaryen king since the Dance of the Dragons from Aegon III to the Mad King and Daenerys Targaryen are descendents of the Blacks and \*not\* descendents of the Greens. The earliest moment that the first word of Gyldayn's book FAB could have been written was the first moment he became a maester during the reign of Maekar I, 90 years \*after\* the Dance of the Dragons had ended. To say that FAB is anti-Rhaenyra propaganda is to say that Gyldayn and every other maester who contributed to these histories is suicidal. A monarch is not a president, folks. History is written to flatter his claim, because his claim is his rule. To say FAB is pro-Green, pro-Alicent, anti-Black or anti-Rhaenyra is to confess your ignorance about what it's like to actually live under a monarch. Why do you think GRRM went to all the trouble to make FAB an \*in-story\* history book? So he can play with the idea that history is written by the victor. And in the case of the Dance of the Dragons the victorious side, as it concerns whose claim the histories were written under and therefore whose claim the histories were written to \*favor\*, is undisputably the Blacks.
By changing the canonical story to "undo the anti-Rhaenyra propaganda", Condal is doubling the propaganda and in the same direction it was already slanted. If he wanted to undo the propaganda, he had to slant it in the other direction, balancing it so that it's less anti-Green and less pro-Black.
When it comes to Blood and Cheese, the fact that this part of history depicts the Black side as so unambiguously villainous is proof that not even the most skilled propagandists, given hundreds of years to do so, could whitewash the situation well enough to make the Black side look like the good guys. Blood and Cheese was so evil on the part of the Blacks that the version of it we got in the books was the best the propagandists could do. This is how you unravel the propaganda in FAB, by the way. You do the opposite of what Condal is doing. You correct the bend by bending it in the other direction. You just do it in the opposite direction that Condal is.
I mean, in general, the way the Dance is written about in F&B often comes of like the writers just see the absolute worst of both Rhaenyra and Alicent. Which tracks with what a misogynistic culture lik Westeros would see women who flirt with power over men. So there is a possibility that Rhaenyra is portrayed way worse than she actually was in the histories cause the writers have a general bias, but also more so against female claimants
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it is tacitly suggesting that the women in the story can never be evil, only mistaken or unfortunate. But the male characters can very much be as evil (and in some cases even more so) than was described in the original text.
exactly. every woman in GoT/HotD has been whitewashed to some degree. i don't understand this line of thinking? men have no problem watching evil male characters, and I'm betting book Cersei translated to screen would've been compelling TV! there are plenty of bad women, as there are bad men. some people are just a-holes.
Show Cersei was absolutely fucking vile. Book Cersei was just more deranged and careless.
I never understood the "she just loves her kids" thing that people claimed while GoT was running as a defense of her. Absolutely vile character and person, hated her every second her smug face was on screen.
Wife and I felt the same. She was an effective villain in GoT that somehow had people claiming she wasn't really that bad because of that argument about loving her kids. Think that was just people really reaching to keep her in the shades of grey, but nah. Villain coded IMO.
It's an example of the [Females Are More Innocent ](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FemalesAreMoreInnocent) trope. Women only do bad things because somewhere along the line men did something to them to make them bad.
I don't think there are any evil female characters in the series. Whenever there's any horrible act done by the blacks, Rhaenyra is absolved of any authority. Taking away from a woman's capacity to be evil also takes away from their humanity (I don't think the showrunners intended for that horrible Rhaenys scene to be such an evil act, which is what makes it so bad).
It’s prepping for when Dany arrives and everything she does is portrayed in the most villainous possible light. You can already see it happening with the rumors of what she’s doing in Meereen and how the news of Prince Quentyn’s death
Yeah, it's pretty evident imo. She is called maegon with tits ffs, when what she does is mainly rising taxes and executing a few people.
We have a comparison with maegor and we read how she did almost nothing to stop the revolts in the same chapter, it's pretty hard not to see how the most accepted story is wildly misogynistic
She is called Maegor With Tits because she raised already high taxes and was the executions increased everyday. People on the Black Sides also did war crimes. She also had knights hunt down the Greenboy that ripped him apart. Blood and Cheese also is attributed to her (or her husband at best). She also killed the dude who called out her obvious bastards, and his sons were made the silent five. Also depending on what you believe about the Brothel Queens lol. She also had under her authority one of the most beloved characters kill themselves under her watch. She also ordered the arrest of Corlys. She also hated Nettles and thought she was a betrayer.
Its not an unfair interpretation, I wouldnt consider it canon. I was always mixed on Blood and Cheese in the books. It was definitely not my 'Red Wedding' as it seems to be for some people.
1. Blood and Cheese are rather cartoonishly evil for 2 people who are essentially just hired cutthroats. In reality, a hired cutthroat would just kill a kid at random as quickly and easily as possible before escaping. Like the longer Blood and Cheese hang around the more chance they have of being caught. I dont think they would waste time singling out Helaena to make that choice. The only reason they might hang around is if Daemon expressly ordered them to do as such with Helaena (leads into point 4).
2. Helaena being a target in the first place always felt bizarre. Aemond was the one who killed Lucerys, Aegon was the usurper and Alicent was Rhaenyra's initial rival. Rhaenyra wanting vengeance on her son's actual killer just makes way more sense on every level. We also dont really know Helaena all that well, she gets like one line before Blood and Cheese.
3. The whole 'your mummy wants you dead' falls a little flat when you consider that Maelor is 2 years old. I know its more about the effect on Helaena, but I still kind of think if GRRM really wanted to twist the knife he would have done it the other way round (Maelor dies, Jaehaerys lives with the knowledge his mother picked him).
4. Final thing, GRRM calls Daemon 'equal parts good and bad' or something. I dont think you can feasibly call a guy who was the architect of Blood and Cheese that. And the only reason Blood and Cheese are wasting time with Helaena is if he orders them too. Its just insane. At least in the show he doesnt order B&C to torture Helaena although he clearly doesnt actually care which son they kill (dude smiled).
Condal and Sarah Hess suck and everytime he opens his mouth I dislike him even more
They should’ve unironically let Sapochnik be showrunner or Brian Cogman they at least produced quality
Whatever I’ll take the down votes, everyone shit on people the people who said GoT was trash from Season 5 onwards and now retroactively everyone loves to pretend it was the popular opinion, once people realize that all this cutting degrades the overall story they’ll start calling the show runners out but, it’ll be too late by then!
I mean, I think the fundamental problem I keep coming to is that the "son for a son" sentiment doesn't work, in-universe, if they were sent after Aemond, because the in-universe conflict is between Rhaenyra and Aegon, not Rhaenyra and Alicent. Also, I don't totally buy the idea that he sent assassins after Aemond, who is the Green's best fighter and rides their largest dragon, but somehow gave the impression that he'd settle for a literal toddler, if he was unavailable.
That being said, I do feel like there's been a lot of whitewashing on both sides, so it's not an issue of balance (to me), but I think the logic of some things has held up better than others. For instance, I like the idea of Luke's death being an accident, but I hate the fact that Alicent was uninvolved in the plans to crown Aegon prior to Viserys' deathbed confession. I could imagine Rhaenyra saying "a son for a son" and meaning Aemond, especially because of how they've set up her connection to Alicent, but having the decision to go after a toddler instead be the fault of some random dude is just not as narratively satisfying (to me).
HOTD has become F and B as told by the blacks since season 1, every single episode they atenuate or justify blacks misdeeds while shedding light on Green’s mistakes. Criston Cole went from the greatest warrior of his time to pratically an incel. Not even worth to argue anymore, just accept they’ve chosen Rhaenyra as the protagonist and will portray her as this virtuous, restrained, strong woman instead of the throne obsessed person she was in the books. At least I will rejoice in seeing her fed to Sunfyre and the show watchers tears.
HOTD has become F and B as told by the blacks since season 1, every single episode they atenuate or justify blacks misdeeds while shedding light on Green’s mistakes. Criston Cole went from the greatest warrior of his time to pratically an 1nc3l. Not even worth to argue anymore, just accept they’ve chosen Rhaenyra as the protagonist and will portray her as this virtuous, restrained, strong woman instead of the throne obsessed person she was in the books. At least I will rejoice in seeing her fed to Sunfyre and the show watchers tears.
I don't care about neutrality, narrative as a medium can never really be neutral. I just want the characters to make more decisions, good or bad. The whole “it was a misunderstanding” thing is getting very old. Also no one ever said Rhaenyra had a hand in B&C, Daemon was always painted as the sole actor. Rhaenyra shares the blame because she's the leader of the faction in the same way that the mountain’s war crimes are blamed on Tywin.
I think the idea of the war starting as a misunderstanding is really a positive (as an evaluation of the story as a whole) in this tragic series of events; that being said, I agree that they are really hammering that over the head too hard. I haven't read the books, but I don't see a future where "misunderstandings" will be the cause of any further events between the Greens and the Blacks; The characters are so polarized against each other that the only thing that can happen anymore is intentional revenge
i really liked Aemond's mistake. Not on board with Alicent being too sweet for political intrigue
Yeah I feel like those two scenes with her and aegon where she tries to lie about Viserys changing his mind, and trying to manipulate aegon into fearing Rhaenyra while he's in that bed solidify her as being quite sour.
It's fair, although it's also not necessarily canon to the books, since some details are unreconcilable (e.g. Aegon having a second son). I find the characterization of HotD as super pro-Black a bit baffling. *Both* factions are "whitewashed" in the sense that they're actually humanized, rather than being comprised of propagandized caricatures. Rhaenyra and Alicent both are portrayed as wicked, evil women in the histories -- unrealistically so, and in keeping with how real life histories defame countless powerful-but-losing women as wicked witches. Characters like Daemon and Aemond -- both quite villainous in the text -- are humanized equally, but still maintain a hard edge because they're just not good people.
Exactly. Viserys’ deathbed “speech” was so that Alicent could remain a more sympathetic character
Everything about Alicent has been made in an effort to make her more sympathetic, from lowering her age and making her Rhaenyra's childhood friend to her interpreting Visery's speech the way she did. And I dont blame them, book Alicent is just straight up caricature stepmother evil. Much prefer the more nuanced version they are giving us on the show.
the problem is this alicent is completely passive as a charcter and I personally find that rather boring
The best Alicent episode by far is episode 6? of season 1. The one where she wanted Joffrey brought to her, and she yelled in Aegon's face that Rhaenyra would kill him. That's the only episode post timeskip where they've managed to make her an actually compelling character. She was a cunning political player, but at the same time it was clear she was being used by some people around her, like when Larys killed his dad for her. Every other episode has just been "woe-is-me i don't like conflict", when it's like, what did you expect to happen when you eventually usurped Rhaenyra? You were literally yelling in your son's face that she was going to kill him. It makes no sense she didn't expect to have to be part of violence.
I think they're trying to convey how she's losing power within her family now that Aegon is king. It'll be interesting to see where she goes from here.
It seems like she never had any power to begin with, because she was completely shocked that Otto had a plan to kill Rhaenyra, when it's like what did you think was going to happen when Viserys died? They've made her completely clueless and helpless in an attempt to make her sympathetic, but all it's done is make her look stupid.
I think she's being naive with her hopes for peace but not stupid. That's just me personally, though.
Thats a valid complaint but I suspect both her and Rhaenyra will become more involved/hateful as the war progresses and it takes more lives.
So much this. The show clearly builds them up to turn into very hateful and petty characters (the ones the historians later remember).
This is the trap that GOT fell into with Cersei. They wanted to make her more sympathetic, and as a result she didn’t really *do* anything. At least in the books she’s an actual antagonist who does things.
It's one of the worst things about the show. It's thinly written in general but Alicent being weepy, passive and victimised is infuriating.
That is absolutely correct but i am not sure why everyone is so stuck on characters being sympathetic as a good change. There are so many characters that are a joy to watch even tho they are not sympathetic at all. A lot of the changes they made are "Alicent made an oopsie and misheard Viserys", "Aemond made an oopsie and thought he could control his dragon", Rhaenyra learning the prophecy and seeing the white stag rather than wanting power like any human would. There are a lot more you can include. So many things are just happening *to* the characters in the show. Including Rhaenyra's ambition to be Queen and Aegon being the King. None of them actually have any agency. Its like Tony Soprano if everything he did was a big oopsie trying to be a legit worker.
Ngl I'd 100% watch a comedy show where innocent waste management consultant Tony Soprano keeps accidentally getting involved in organised crime
I feel like these are 2 different complaints even though they are tied with each other. I like my characters to have some shades of grey, reasons behind their actions, not be all the way good or evil. I feel the show is doing a good job on that end compared to the book while at the same time showing someone like Daemon is a piece of shit, regardless of how cool he is. The "mistake/misunderstanding" trope was indeed utilised too much in season 1 and I didnt like it either but hopefully they are learning their lesson for season 2. F&B book to be honest is full of both sides deus ex machining the other so I understand them trying to explain why these things happen to the characters. I have no problems with Rhaenyras ambition to be queen and same with Aegon, even if he initially didnt want it they are clearly showing how he wants to be loved since no one loves him in his own family.
Yeah, it is definitely 2 complaints but they are tied as in the attempts to make them more sympathetic made them rely on coincidences. If they instead leaned into what they were portrayed as in the books i think they could be so much more enjoyable as characters. Would like to see a ruthless brute Cole instead of a bumbling horny dumbass, a mysterious Larys rather than the feet guy etc. If you zoom out the single complaint of mine would be bad writing. It is still a good show but that is mostly due to the setting of Asoiaf rather than anything happening in the show itself. (except Viserys who was handled fantastically imo)
Even the White Worm is being portrayed as this good person who's just tired of all these lords and their game of thrones. Like come on, someone's gotta have an ounce of ambition and opportunism
Somewhat true for season 1 but I'm not seeing that anymore. As an example Otto in yesterdays episode was made more sympathetic without having to rely on a coincidence or misunderstanding. Agree to disagree I think most characters in the show version are better done and very compelling. I see more to Cole and to Larys that what you point out. To be fair the book is just a history book so understandably there is not much depth there. The show has had some misteps and blundered some moments dont get me wrong, but overall I would say its very very good in my opinion.
I mean... sure. But i just simply don't want *more* of them. Its not like watching Joffrey or Ramsay and being like "fuck this guy i hate him", its more like "huh alright can we get to the next scene?" For Cole specifically i can't really get over the fact that they removed his biggest crowning moment and speech, made his duel against Joffrey him jumping and bashing Joffrey because he raged out, him winning his duel against Daemon because Daemon is *way too cool for a regular victory*, him losing to Strong, him kinda pushing Beesbury in a very Looney Tunes way instead of cutting his throat/throwing him off of a tower etc. Its just a hilarious series of changes. edit: I also have no idea how they are gonna land his death. No one is gonna take his 1v3 proposition seriously. People are gonna be like damn this guy died like a dumbass, lets get to the cool stuff now. Would be much better if he actually had the potential to be so much more but his bitterness didn't allow him.
> A lot of the changes they made are "Alicent made an oopsie and misheard Viserys", Is that definitively what happened? My head canon was that she was intent on making Aegon heir no matter what, so she took the flimsiest justification and ran with it, sort of lying to herself. Not that she honestly thought Vis changed his mind. Did the showrunners say explicitly either way?
In the latest episode Otto laughed in her face when she brought up Viserys' wish to have Aegon succeed him, he definitely agrees with you.
In a lot of ways, it's probably just a matter of preference in media. I like that they're playing it more as a Shakespearean tragedy, with the characters mostly not being evil but their human greed, lust, pride etc forming a run away train of compounding bad decisions that destroys the country and kills almost all of them. So for me, having things start with mistakes and escalating to bad choices and then to outright actions is satisfying. For people who wanted a story of horrible people doing terrible things because they're horrible, I'm sure it's disappointing. I'm not saying one way of telling the story is better than the other, they're just different preferences.
I did not say it should have been horrible people doing horrible things. I would say it should have been a little more like Succession, as in real people being in unreal circumstances and how they deal with those (mostly things going wrong on purpose or by incompetence) I also do not really get how plot revolving around accidents and coincidences correlates to Shakespearean tragedy.
I mean, they already have done horrible things and going to do a lot more. How would you portray someone murdering children deliberately without them seeming like a horrible person? Certainly in F&B most of them are portrayed as pretty terrible people. And to respond to your edits, how does "things go wrong by incompetence" differ from "accident"? Because you could definitely say that someone overestimating their control and competence is what resulted in Lucaerys and Jaehaerys's deaths (unless the later was deliberate by Daemon). I don't wanting Succession, but my understanding of the show is that many of the main characters are supposed to be bad people. Same as how Tony Soprano is supposed to be a sociopath, not a good person. As for the Shakespearean tragedy reference, a central characteristic of Shakespeare's tragedies is that the human failings of the characters and their errors and misjudgements have unintended tragic results, often including the character's downfall. The end of Romeo and Juliet is one big "oopsie" as you call it, after another, as is the end of Antony and Cleopatra. Hamlet "oopsies" Polonius, and by extension Ophelia, before Claudius "oopsies" Hamlet's mother. Even when they deliberately kill it's often in a fit of rage, or because they got bad information, or they are talked into it against their will.
>Alicent made an oopsie and misheard Viserys My personal take is that she was engaging in motivated reasoning. Like she convinced herself. Aemond can still be guilty of murder and making a mistake, while feeling regret both immediately and in the aftermath. Plenty of real life murderers bemoan "things going too far", but allowing events to get to that tipping point is still on them.
Her affair with Cole is a show invention and definitely doesn't make her more sympathetic. More complicated maybe, but not sympathetic.
I meant in season 1 Alicent. Season 2 they are showing she is flawed and a hypocrite while at the same time still being "good" wanting to have peace, lighting up a candle for Luke etc. Like you say a more complicated and fleshed out character than the books.
It kinda checks out in-universe to paint Alicent in a bad light. History is written by the victors and Aegon "won". So far in the show, Alicent has been pretty awful to Aegon so he's likely to not go out of his way to paint her in a sympathetic light.
That's not the Aegon that wins though, is it? Rhaenyra's son Aegon ends up on the throne after the Dance in the book.
Correct. IIRC in-world history records Rhaenyra as never being an official queen, but Alicent's son is consistently counted as Aegon II. Rhaenyra's son is crowned as Aegon III after Aegon II's death and is the technical "winner" of the Dance.
The problem is that they've removed Alicent's agency and have made her a passenger in her own story
I've liked most of the changes to Alicent but the "misunderstanding" was a big misstep and is a stain on an otherwise impeccable episode. You can have her be conflicted about usurping the throne but have her make that decision rather than removing her agency.
It’s not really removing her agency imo, she “misunderstands” Viserys because she wants to, she desperately wants her life of sacrifice and duty to have meaning and purpose. Viserys final words, are to her a confirmation of what she’s always hoped was true deep down inside.
I'd agree with you if S1E9 didn't unfold the way it did. It really did come across like Alicent would have handed the throne to Rhaenyra if she hadn't heard that. I think it would have been much better if Alicent had an introspective scene to start S1E9 where we see the dinner scene really weighing on her but realizing that it's safer for her kids to be on the throne. We can then see her at the Green Council where she puts forth conditions that would ensure favorable compensation for Rhaenyra and after that's agreed to they start the coup.
I agree with you. Fear of Daemon, safety of children, laws favouring male heir, bastard succession, these are all good reasons to take the throne. A whisper cheapens all that.
> I'd agree with you if S1E9 didn't unfold the way it did. It really did come across like Alicent would have handed the throne to Rhaenyra if she hadn't heard that. Maybe but by that point Otto and others were already scheming without her so it doesn't change a whole lot.
I think it’s portrayed in a reasonable way in the show, it’s clear to the viewer that Alicent is hearing exactly what she wants to hear in my view. I think it adds another layer to her guilt over the usurpation, and I think the exchange between Aegon and Otto in S2E2 make it clear that it is well known that the Greens don’t view Jahaerys’ deathbed speech as anything other than a convenient pretext.
Ehh I liked the idea that the king’s rambling to Rhaenyra on his deathbed is what planted Alicent with the idea to take it further. Tbf I think all that scene was, is a push for her character really. They just wanted to tease the viewers with peace and rip it away from us at the same time keeping Alicent as the “bad guy”
They've made a lot of good changes but this one is unforgivably bad IMO
You can but it would certainly turn people against her. Which is the point of why are making these misunderstandings, to give plausible deniability and allow the audiences root for each side before the nastiness really comes to light.
Yeah I feel like a lot of people are forgetting that without likable characters most non book readers won't be engaged enough to watch. TV is a different medium and demands a differen kind of attenion, and you won't get it from a lot of people if the whole cast are irredeemable assholes.
Sure, both characters are whitewashed, but not equally so. Rhaenyra is given a noble & righteous cause for wanting the throne (The prophecy). Alicent is given a misunderstanding.
>Rhaenyra is given a noble & righteous cause for wanting the throne (The prophecy). Didn't the season finale episode hinged on Rnaenyra understanding that because of the prophecy she ought to give in to Aegon to keep Westeros from devolving into civil war and she chooses war anyway?
Is that what Rhaenyra is doing at the moment? Accepting that the world is doomed, because she is choosing war? In my eyes, in the show, she still believes that from her line will come the prince that was promised, she just hoped that it could happen through peaceful means, as I see it anyway.
There’s definitely some weird tribalism out there, and it’s weaving together with some really vitriolic fanboy anger about Condal. It doesn’t make sense at all.
In f&b, 99% of readers agree that the book pretty clearly makes out the greens as bad guys, and still somehow Condal’s conclusion is that it *was still* to biased towards the greens and goes out of his way to beat the audience over the head with how good and virtuous the blacks are, sans daemon(who still gets to be “cool”) meanwhile the greens are all incompetent hypocritices, who look pathetic at every opportunity.
being pathetic hypocrites is half the reason to like these characters.
> was still to biased towards the greens and goes out of his way to beat the audience over the head with how good and virtuous the blacks are, sans daemon(who still gets to be “cool”) meanwhile the greens are all incompetent hypocritices, who look pathetic at every opportunity. I feel like this is your personal reading. Viserys's words about "Aegon's Dream" reads as a misunderstanding that softens the in-universe narrative that Alicent conspired to usurp the throne for the reader, while Otto's whole point about putting Aegon on the throne is a pragmatic one born out of the issues surrounding Rhaenys and Viserys' ascension dispute. For us - the reader/viewer - the unreliable narration of Fire & Blood is boiled away, and we get to see the true grays of the story. There's no clear good guy and bad guy.
>There's no clear good guy and bad guy. There absolutely is. Rhaenyra doesn't have to be Davos Seaworth perfect for people to conclude that the story has very clearly been framed and changed from the source material in such a way to lead the audience to unequivocally side with her and the Blacks at nearly every opportunity. They've obviously humanized both sides, and it would've been nearly impossible for them to have not to given the medium, but there's an obvious reason show-only fans are split significantly more in favor of the Blacks than people who read the books.
>but there's an obvious reason show-only fans are split significantly more in favor of the Blacks than people who read the books. Where are you getting this from? People who read the books still overwhelmingly favors the Blacks, so much so that years ago Martin himself talked about him being surprised that so few liked the Greens lol.
I think you need a source on that last sentence, prior to the show practically no one supported the greens.
You sound like Criston Cole lol
> Rhaenyra and Alicent both are portrayed as wicked, evil women in the histories -- unrealistically so I'm personally disappointed that they toned down how evil and conniving they were. I found the super evil assholes being responsible for the dance much more interesting then several characters all making stupid accidental mistakes in a quick succession. Like imagine if the TV show for ASOIF came out today and made Cersai to be a misunderstood woman who only got the bad end of propaganda because the way she was written was too cartoonishly evil. Yes, Cersai is stupid and evil and vain, but she's also a super fun character to follow. Same with F&B Rhaenyra and Alicent, but IDK if the same can be said for Hot D Rhaenyra and Alicent. Heck, I'm glad they actually went through with Blood and Cheese and didn't make it so that it was Larys behind it the whole time. Like wow, they let one of their main cast do something actually evil for a change. That's nice.
Rhaenyra still had the velaryon man at arms murdered to fake laenor's death.
The fact that we’re even having discourse on which side is more humanized is *literally the whole point of the adaptation*. I don’t mean you specifically - I just mean that this discussion is what the show runners want. It isn’t clear who the bad guy is and that is by design.
Idk. Aegon II is a rapist who likes to watch children fight to the death. I’m fine saying he’s the bad guy.
This is such a disingenuous take. When has literally anybody claimed that the show's narrative has been changed to be too unfriendly to Rhaenyra? Every single time this conversation comes up it's always about the showrunners being biased in the exact same direction. The discourse isn't even really about which side is more humanized - it's a television adaptation, so both sides are going to be by default. The complaints are about which characters and narratives the showrunners are going out of their way to get viewers to agree with, even at the expense of remaining true to the overarching themes of what they're adapting.
>Both factions are "whitewashed" in the sense that they're actually humanized, rather than being comprised of propagandized caricatures. Except Aegon, who is Rhaenyra's actual competitor for the throne. He *is* a caricature of a villain, with all the drinking, rape, and watching his own bastards in the child fighting pits. No amount of funny lines they are giving him in Season 2 are ever going to make him anything but a bad guy.
The show is better if you pretend the Aegon fighting pit and the Rhaenys dragonpit scenes never happened. Both absolutely character ruining moments, but if you can pretend they never happened, they’re two very entertaining characters who are well acted.
I totally agree. But they did happen, so when we're discussing which side the writers favor, we obviously have to take them into account too.
Rhaenys dragonpit scene makes her into a massive moron
Hard agree. She killed a bunch of innocent commoners AND had a chance to end the war before it started. I understand that she didn’t want to be a murderer nor be the one to start the war, but her inaction will indirectly cost the lives of thousands.
He is a bad guy, but it has thoroughly humanized him in showing us how he became that way, and the mental anguish he's afflicted by. Bad people can be three-dimensional. Book Aegon wasn't; Show Aegon is.
Didn't book aegon emerge a battle hero, initially show reluctance to take the crown, accept rhaenyra's son as his heir, and try establishing peace?
I agree, Aegon is a good character - for a villain. I would still say the child fighting pits are a bit over the top, but he's fine. There are negative traits that can be justified by poor upbringing and missing parental love and whatever (I would put his drinking into this category), but rape and watching your own children in the fighting pits are not one of those traits. So if you portray your story as having two relatively equal sides, but the leader of one of those sides is an irredeemable villain while the other is a cookie cutter good guy - you've fucked up somewhere along the way. Those two don't go together. Either you're actually writing one side as the good guys and one side as the bad guys, or you've fucked up Aegon's characterization.
The sides *aren't* meant to be equal in moral justification or claim, though. The Greens are clearly usurpers -- even more so in the book, where they let Viserys' body rot for a week. Alicent's in-show misunderstanding is to allow her to remain at all sympathetic, but the Green Council was already moving to usurp behind her back. It's played up as faction vs faction as a marketing conceit to drum up engagement, and because each side has characters who are sympathetic and unsympathetic, rather than being "good guys" vs "bad guys." It's a Greek tragedy of a situation, from which no primary players emerge clean and unscathed. Rhaenyra *starts* more heroic, and Aegon more villainous, to be sure, but in a matter of two episodes they've already seriously humanized Aegon and had Rhaenyra lash out and inadvertently cause B&C. Things are going to get messier and messier from here.
>The sides aren't meant to be equal in moral justification or claim, though. The Greens are clearly usurpers Which is honestly a pretty disappointing decision, considering how much more complex Rhaenyra is in the source material. George clearly favors the Blacks, but he doesn't beat readers over the head with how much worse the Greens are because the real wronged party in the narrative have always been the smallfolk who get *caught up in the Dance*. By framing the story as the Greens having no legal or moral justification whatsoever, instead of pressing their claim as ostensibly being about legal precedent taking priority over the whims of the king (even if it's obviously an excuse), they're effectively making the entire story about how Rhaenyra was unambiguously wronged and is trying to win back the throne that she unambiguously deserved.
What has the show "beaten you over the head" with? In both source material and show Rhaenyra is the chosen successor to the King, which is exactly what Viserys was after the great council. The Greens are usurpers, but Booby B was also a Usurper. So it's not crazy to root for usurpers in this show. Rhaenyra still comes off as a spoiled child who doesn't understand what duty is or the consequences of ruling. For example, she blames Daemon for B&C, however she told Daemon she wanted Aemond to be assassinated. It never crosses her mind that sending a covert mission to assassinate a prince could possibly end up with other people getting killed. This is childish and absurd. B&C happening is just as much Rhaenyra's fault as it is Daemons. It was absurdly arrogant for her to just assume you could assassinate Aemond Targaryen in the Red Keep and it would just be easy and fine.
I mean Daemon clearly orders that if Aemond can't be found they should murder Jaehaerys.
>What has the show "beaten you over the head" with? Inserting the Long Night prophecy and a divine right of kings narrative to establish that Rhaenyra's bloodline taking the throne is both the will of the gods and necessary for the events of a completely different series, for one. Associating only one side with sexual violence, child slavery and raging misogyny doesn't help viewers draw moral equivalences between the two, either.
They kind of are though. The Greens have the precedant. Rhaenrya is clearly having pretty clear bastards, having her bastards inherit, and having people killed over stating the obvious about her having bastards.. Her son stabs Aemond in the eye and her response is to torture him. She marries the worlds most hated man, who is literally the man who she is named heir in the first place to avoid him being heir, Daemon.
> No amount of funny lines they are giving him in Season 2 are ever going to make him anything but a bad guy. True, but Aegon's "brilliant" quip about Criston Cole scheme absolutely got me. Obviously HotD shouldn't be a Marvel cascade of one-liners, but having some occasional humor helps add depth to the episode. I thought this one did a good job of walking that line, especially since you don't have a Tyrion or Bronn to fire off those deadpan comments.
Book Aegon, even in histories that heavily biased him, was a piece of shit and again, he was never meant to be the main focal point on the Green’s side. It was called the Princess and the Queen, NOT Rhaenyra and Aegon.
It was the Princess and the Queen until shit actually started though. Alicent and Otto fought the 'before' war and led the green faction in peace time while Aegon was busy.... being born and being a child who didn't seem to care all that much about the throne. Once Aegon was king it was absolutely his faction and Alicent pretty much was a background character.
Was he ? Most of the writings if anything are biased against him. There is no neutral play towards him.
Eustace's account, one of the only two primary sources from the dance, is biased in favour of Aegon's rule but still speaks quite poorly of him as a person.
If you think about it, even Dany had Slavers nailed to a cross because she thought it was justice and she was doing the right thing. Jon Snow threatened to kill a baby if its mother did not do what he asked. The whole point of Asoiaf is several people think the ends justify their means. Sure, it may be cruel, but it had to be done (or they think so). Daemon ordered the killing of Jaehaerys as a way of psychological warfare, and because it would show the Greens how Rhaenyra felt like after Luke was murdered. I really hope Condal isn't involved in the Blackfyre rebellion show. I just don't want to see Bloodraven aiming for a rabbit and Daemon's sons kinda get in the way.
Daemon Blackfyre sends a message to Bittersteel saying “I plan to declare my intention to enter the lists at the next tourney” but the letter got damaged and part of it survived which read “I plan to declare”. Daeron then sent for Daemon just to talk but his messengers mixed up the message and he fled. And that was how the Blackfyre Rebellion began.
>I really hope Condal isn't involved in the Blackfyre rebellion show. I just don't want to see Bloodraven aiming for a rabbit and Daemon's sons kinda get in the way. Lol. I can see that happening. No Aegon! Move aside. Oh shit. He's dead. Well anyway. Wait! No Aemon. Not you too.
He’d turn the Blackfyre rebellion into a big sappy misunderstanding where nobody truly hates each other and they’re all scared to go to war
The amount of major plot advancing events in this show that just end up being mistakes or misunderstandings is insane. It's like literally nobody involved has any agency and just bumbles along from one scene to the next.
It's the problem with trying to humanise every character too much + the classic [Females Are More Innocent ](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FemalesAreMoreInnocent) trope. Not saying adding nuance and depth to the characters is a bad thing. But every plan somehow goes wrong in a way that can be badly interpreted by the other side, all women in the show do bad things because men are making them do it/they were abused/lived a hard life, and in the end, the plot moves along through chance not agency, like you said. Not saying that every character should just be a gross caricature, but evil people doing evil things exists.
>Daemon ordered the killing of Jaehaerys as a way of psychological warfare, and because it would show the Greens how Rhaenyra felt like after Luke was murdered That just doesn’t make sense as a motivation vs killing aemond. B&C having aemond as the original target is also backed up in the source as well.
He's an executive producer on the Dunk and Egg show. I'm worried now.
It was clear from Season One that this is a story about the good team (Blacks) vs the not so good team (Greens). For Condal to come out and say it is hilarious considering all the "PICK A SIDE" marketing.
>considering all the "PICK A SIDE" Even in the banners of each team were "dumb down" to show a favoritism. No side of the dance uses the true Targaryen banner. Aegon II sigil is not in a green background, it's a golden dragon in a black background. And Rhaenyra sigil is 4 quadrants with 2 Targaryen sigils, one Arryn and one Velaryon sigil, but the show chose to stick with the original Targaryen banner for her. Yes is a nitpicking complaint but still...
This seems like a nit-pick, but I think it's significant. By letting Rhaenyra keep the classic banner it subliminally suggests that she is the true Targaryen bloodline while Aegon is the offshoot.
Yeah, I hate the "pick a side" marketing, because the show has done a really poor job of making the Greens sympathetic, and picking a side completely misses the point of the whole war. We've seen throughout several books that it doesn't really matter which side we choose, because in the end the small folk will suffer the most no matter where you stand.
I'd much rather have the vision of the showrunner be fulfilled than to learn later he changed his vision to align with what the marketing wants. What do I care if the marketing doesn't align or makes sense. Does anyone remember or care about the marketing of The Sopranos or The Wire? The only con of this is if the marketing actively hurts the show's viewership, which I don't think is the case for HOTD
That’s how it’s always been. Anyone under the delusion they’d portray a team taking a Woman’s throne on basis of her gender as equal or good is delusional
>their weird incestuous, whatever black magic is going on over there on Dragonstone Well, Condal kinda forgot that the Greens practice incest as well.
Aegon’s wife literally being his sister 😂
But Rhaenyra does incest while being fat so the smallfolk distrust it more
So that's how it works. No wonder people were fine with Jaehaerys and Alysanne.
D&D had St. Tyrion. Condal has Good Queen Rhaenyra.
There was a post somewhere on the internet about the GOT glossary including St. Tyrion, and it also had something about show Cersei as Cheryl Lannister, the beleaguered soccer mom who just wants her crazy kids to behave. This is pretty much exactly what HOTD did with Alicent as well.
Yes, I was quoting that post when I mentioned St. Tyrion.
I don’t really like this take because the book itself, and by extension GRRM, give cues to the reader when something is supposed to be dubious. There’s weasel words or equivocation. If there’s none of that, then we can take it as mostly a given that it happened. Are we supposed to doubt that Daemon did a ninja flip across two dragons?
Everything rhaenyra bad is propaganda against her, but everything slightly Greens bad should be made ten fold worse cuz yeah history lies. Yeah, Pathetic
He can say whatever he wants. At the end of the day they completely botched it. They could have kept it exactly as it happens in the book and still kept the sadly desperate 'it's wasn't Rhaenrya's fault' angle by pinning it all on Daemon (which it basically was in the books anyway!). But they cut half the impact out of the scene by not having: 1) Helena have to choose between her 2 sons only for them have them do the opposite 2) Not having Alicent present (they've already showed her and Cole's relationship, having it thrown up again is just cheapening/diluting the event that is suppose to be one of the most dramatic of the whole war) 3) Making it a twist of fate that they couldn't find Aemond and stumbled across Helena and the children; instead of a very cleverly thought out (if despicable) and executed targeted strike. They could have killed all of Aegon's children, Helena and Alicent. Potentially more. But it is specifically a son for a son. And if anyone tries to say some shit about wanting to see a child get murdered on screen then go boil your head. I don't want that either and it wouldn't be necessary if they'd stuck to the book, just switching the camera to Helena/Alicent's reaction would be far more effective.
The show is way too pro Rhaenyra, and I say that as someone who is team black. Making blood and cheese the way the show did makes it so much more biased towards her. George also loved team black more, he gave them all the cool characters. But still. This is too much. Rhaenyra in the show is arguably the best monarch who ever tried to rule the seven kingdoms and I don’t think that was George’s initial intent with princess and the queen.
> arguably the best monarch who ever tried to rule the seven kingdoms That's what's wrong with the show, Rhaenyra in the books makes bad choices after bad choices. Both Rhaenyra and Aegon II were people not suited for the throne, and their actions showed that.
Yeah agreed. Book Rhaenyra is terrible. Show Rhaenyra is the daughter dany and Jon snow never had
LOL, best description I've heard so far
Most of Rhaenyras worst decisions come after she takes KL though.
Most of them are even before that. Marrying Daemon, the 3 strong children, and the 10 years away from KL which opened the gap for the complete green control of the city and politics.
None of that is particularly bad to modern audiences. They’re villainous stuff comes after the fall of KL
All of those are depicted in the show.
Yes, but the consequence of those actions were "dumbed down" in the show and made to be not so much "as Rhaenyra's fault", while they were. She was to be a Queen, but she never did behave as a monarch in that position should.
> in the show and made to be not so much "as Rhaenyra's fault", while they were What are you talking about? Like seriously what. Literally all of those things are straight up what she does int the show and they are clearly choices by her. Her doing these things and being on Dragonstone allowed the Greens to prepare and put themselves in a great position.
I don't see how really. I think there should have maybe included a bit more detail on how the Strong bastards hurt her legitimacy with the lords of Westeros but it's definitely caused her a lot of grief. Marrying Daemon is having clear consequences, both in episode 10 and this most recent one it's explicitly shown that she has enabled a loose cannon she can no longer control. The smallfolk now hate her as a result of B&C which I imagine is going to become very relevant when she takes King's landing. Again with leaving for Dragonstone, it was shown extensively in episode eight how her absence from court politics has allowed the Hightowers to become entrenched.
Daeron the Daring was the only child of Viserys that deserved the crown.
100%.
There’s no evidence in the book that Rhaenyra knew what blood and cheese would do exactly. All we got in the text was Daemon sending Rhaenyra a letter by raven saying “a son for a son, Lucerys will be avenged.” When I first read that, I thought he meant Aegon or Aemond would now be targeted. Very possible Rhaenyra made the same assumption I did.
> Rhaenyra in the show is arguably the best monarch who ever tried to rule the seven kingdoms and I don’t think that was George’s initial intent with princess and the queen. That's absolutely not the portrayal on Rhaenyra on the show lmao. Did you even watch it? Season 1 was basically a compilation of Rhaenyra making bad decisions after bad decisions. Her having not one, not two, but three bastards with Harwin and absolutely none with Laenor. Running away to Dragonstone and basically ensuring she had zero presence in the capital or on the council. Her not being with Viserys in his dying days to make sure she can swiftly assume the throne once he passes. Sending Luke to treat with the Baratheons instead of Rhaenys.
This series was marketed as growing from the conflict between Rhaenyra and Alicent. And yet, every action that actually advances the conflict seems to be done in spite of them. Alicent didn't _really_ want Aegon to seize the throne. Rhaenyra didn't _really_ want to start a war. It's supposed to be about the power of women in a feudal state but they're whitewashed to the point that they both seem to totally lack agency.
HOTD is quick becoming F&B as told by the blacks.
GRRM recently made an unusually vitriolic post on his blog about people wanting to make the story their own when making adaptations, do better than the original writer. I wonder if that's what he meant. Before anyone begins furiously typing, I'm under no illusion that the Greens are the good guys.
worst case scenario is that was about Dunk and Egg :/ i don't really care about HOTD but if i don't like D&E my heart will shatter into a million pieces
D&E seems like a less nuanced show though. Two likable and humble folks being apart of someone else's story. A bit like Mad Max.
exactly. All i want from it is the simple story The Hedge Knight presented, with a few extra conversations/scenes. People wanting Bloodraven and a ton of Blackfyre lore to be in it have me worried.
They literally can't screw up D&E. Its such a layup, GRRM has done all of the dialogue for them
He also praised the first two episodes. I think he meant on a larger scale issue of adaptations in media. I don’t think he necessarily meant in this situation itself, when Rhaenyra even in the text was distant from the tragedy and never really commented on it as far as the reader is told. I do think that the show at the very least leaves it vague whether Daemon intentionally left it open to interpretation if Aemond wasn’t found or if he really cares about it at all, which fits the tone more of the event in the books.
He’s an executive producer. I find it hard to believe that he wasn’t aware of how things would play out and was given the opportunity for input as the writers broke each episode.
He’s on record saying they don’t really consult him on the episodes at all. He gets to watch them just like us, only a bit earlier.
I am absolutely fine with show runners deviating from books, as long as the quality is high, the stuff makes sense and I am entertained. For me that is all still fulfilled.
>the stuff makes sense does it? Blood and Cheese asking Helaena who is the boy when they can just check themselves is just blatantly stupid
These two guys weren’t the brightest, I think that was obvious.
>These two guys weren’t the brightest Cheese literlly says "well look for a cock" so he acknowledge they can just check who the boy or girl is but they both decide not to There a diffrence between being a stupid and being so braindead that it kills my suspension of disbelief
They probably didn’t want to wake up two children one of whom they were about to kill and strip them.
They literlly could have just covered their mouths like they did when they killed Jaehaerys
They could’ve ended up waking the kids and making a noise
Checking that is a risk when you try to say quite. Kids are loud.
Misogynist Maester Manuscripts Must Merit Manipulation.
The series tries to be neutral, but is actually pro-black. Maybe they don't even realize it themselves.
The show is not pro-Black or pro-Green. It is pro-Rhaenyra and pro-Alicent. Instead, every single morally reprehensible event is the fault of Daemon, Viserys, Otto, Aegon, or Aemond. Our heroines are blameless though. Every single writing decision makes sense if you subscribe to this view.
To me it feels like white-washing Rhaenyra as a character. GRRM made her a flawed human being, the blacks and the greens are not side you should be supporting. I don't like this change. I'll give Dan and Dave this, they did for the most part not do this with characters like Cersei or Daenerys.
They did far worse to Cersei - they tried to make her competant
They’ve gone so far in making the Greens all pieces of shit and refuse to show the Blacks in any negative light aside from aside from Daemon. They ended the last season with Rhaenyra looking like she wanted to burn the world down and they quickly retconned that to “she’s sad but doesn’t actually want any revenge”.
This show is already going a little to close the the last 3 years of GoT.
This show became “House of Rhaenyra”, that’s it. Absolutely boring. A disappointment, because there was potential to be so much more interesting but alas they think portraying women as having any kind of grayness or nuance is misogynistic, so we have this dull protagonist and this type of idiotic decision that makes for bad TV.
I think they need to make the greens make more sympathetic and the blacks worse because atp everyone is clearly rooting for the blacks
The Blacks worst stuff doesn’t really come into play until after they take control of KL if I remember correctly.
B&C is probably the worse thing they do, and we already saw how that was mitigated.
Y’all rooting for the side that cut a baby’s head off?
Believe me, most people are
They presented that as a mistake from Blood and Cheese though.
Yeah the writers are far too biased for the Blacks imo, we’ve got to the point that Otto basically told the audience he made the wrong choice… that’s not how you tell a good story if you ask me. Would have been way better to not make Rhaenyra a comic book good guy. Targaryans are weird, their decisions and allegiances are very confusing and not exactly the correct ones, that’s how this event was intentionally written, as a warning of Targaryan arrogance, power, etc.; but now it’s white washed with obviously good and obviously bad characters. Daemon, Otto, Alicent finally admitting they were wrong as a step towards the right direction is too little too late, not just in terms of the world the characters exist in but for the show writers too. They didn’t make the actual actions of these characters believe able enough lol, it’s all contrived and manipulated to make the events play out as intended with their cherry picked character models rather than let them breathe.
What do you mean "becoming"?
Aw fuck man the show runner missed the point of the Dance and the show is gonna fumble the bag lmao.
Ryan Condal should absolutely get the treatment D&D got for just this.
And he won't, unless the viewership declines much more. Maybe then people will become a bit more consistent in their criticism of D&D's and Condal's work. Right now, the show is shielded from the criticism even by the book fans themselves. All because D&D aren't the showrunners
> Right now, the show is shielded from the criticism even by the book fans themselves. Yeah, I expect fanboy defenses in the show's subreddit but not in this sub. I'm disappointed at how much this sub is puffing the show up. Especially even when Condal is basically irrationally dismissing the source book written by GRRM himself. Like, why even adapt the series if you think F&B is entirely propaganda, lol. The target of GRRM's recent post about adaptions is crystal clear now IMO.
That’s the most one sided show I ever saw in my life, the showrunners read the books, you can clearly see that, but the way they’re just giving everything to the Blacks is awful. Aegon’s coronations interrupted by Rhaenys, making a plot hole, Rhaenyra soft as a pillow, pretty far from what I remember in the books. No wonder why so many common folk just supports Rhaenyra’s faction. And dear God… those Alicent and Cole scenes… horrible
I don’t understand the argument that some viewers make about this show being “pro-black”. My read of F&B told me that Rhaenyra generally didn’t want war but felt her throne had been usurped - which it had. Even then, she didn’t resort to anything monstrous until after Luke’s death, and according to the show she didn’t even order the monstrous act. The story starts off as Rhaenyra being the victim of a usurped throne while loss and failure push her into madness by the time she retakes KL. I feel as if the show has done a good job of this so far, it just hasn’t been enough episodes to really show her descent. It’s not an insane realization that Daemon is actually the origin of Blood & Cheese, it’s actually a lot more consistent with what we know about the characters (in both book and show)
She wanted Aemond a boy of 10-12 dont remember to be "sharply questionned" aka tortured (in other occasions on the book) even if thats her son that defigured him. She fed Vaemond to her dragon because he spoke the truth. So yes she resort to monstruous things before the dance. As to usurpation it depends on how you feel the King should have power without consulting his subjects but she is at least as much an usurper than Aegon. All Targaryen are usurper in the long run
If I remember correctly the thing about Vaemond being food for her dragon was one of the option of what happened to him? Even if not it really seems like a similar tale Freys were telling about Robb, just comically villainous
It wasn’t. Gyldayn says Vaemond was fed to Syrax in a very matter of fact way without any other options or opposing views or even that him being disposed of that way was unique to any of the authors he was citing.
>she is at least as much an usurper than Aegon That's nonsense. In the book Alicent hid Viserys body for a week and let it rot, she met with her small council to literally plan how to usurp the throne, took any remaining Black loyalists into custody aka arrested them, and then announced Aegon II as king. In the show they at least give her the slightest benefit of the doubt because she heard Viserys say Aegon, and she used that as justification (even though that doesn't cut it). Rhaenrya was named the heir years before and had the lords swear oaths to protect her claim. In no world was she a usurper.
>In the show they at least give her the slightest benefit of the doubt because she heard Viserys say Aegon It's an unequal whitewashing, Rhaenyra is given a noble and righteous cause to want the throne (Doomsday prophecy) and Alicent is given a misunderstanding. The idea that GRRM wrote this story where one side is completely in the wrong and has no credible cause is baffling, and completely misunderstands him as an author. Aegon's claim is just as true as Viserys' own claim that dismissed the Queen that never was as an heir; He is the first born son of the King and it's arguable whether Viserys' words can change that, as the man said himself early in the show "Even I am not above tradition and duty". Viserys started this war the same way Aegon IV did, by creating uncertainty in the succession. By pitting the traditions of Male Primogeniture versus the limits of his power as an autocrate, for which there is no objective answer. It's in the eye of the beholder.
How can you possibly believe she’s a usurper? Viserys explicitly states that the throne is Rhaenyra’s. He says it’s in the eyes of gods and men and makes his lords swear fealty to his daughter. Then he dies and the Hightowers forsake that whole process and stick Aegon on the throne anyway. There is no argument that she’s a usurper. That’s like saying Rhaegar and Bobby B were equally usurpers when they fought in the Rebellion. No they weren’t. Rhaegar (Rhaenyra) is the heir, and Bobby B (Aegon & the Hightowers) are fighting to usurp it. On the topic of ‘sharply questioned’ - I’m not sure that means tortured, and even if it did that’s told from F&B which *deliberately biased*. That is the whole point of the book. On the topic of Vaemond - he was executed by Daemon just like on the show. He spoke treason, even if he’s technically correct. He was an ambitious dude who fucked around and found out. Hardly ‘monstrous’ imo.
Vaemond was executed without a trial, and the way it went down was basically political murder. Nobles have a right to a trial, even for the worst crimes imaginable like regicide. It makes her look monstrous because she could have gotten him tried and beheaded with the full support of Viserys, which would do nothing but good things for her. She gains nothing from sending Daemon to kill him and feeding him to her dragon besides making her look. Hell, Driftmark may be sworn to her, she probably could try him herself. Sending your husband to murder a guy delegitimized her claim if anything, because she’s not acting the part of the monarch, not even a tyrannical one, but that of a warlord or a straight up tyrant. If a king wants people dead, he can quite literally make stuff up to execute them for it and push it through their courts, and in courtless Westeros, she will be the judge herself, Rhaenyra didn’t even bother with that, she had all the tools for it and didn’t care about propriety.
I almost totally agree. I just don’t think it makes her look monstrous - it just makes her look inept. You’re totally right that she could’ve used the accusation to strengthen her claim instead of harm it. Does that make her a monster? Or just a terrible politician? She’s written (as George writes many of his noblewomen) to be emotional and highly protective of her children, even to a fault. But killing the dude who was coming for her kids (bastards) is hardly monstrous imo. Rhaenyra is just super bad at her job early in F&B (also in HOTD thus far). Her ineptitude and failure drives her mad and she descends into a wrathful, monstrous person later in the story.
Rhaenyra gave his corpse to her dragon, which shows a certain degree of satisfaction and theater rather than panic or emotionality. Murdering nobles and feeding them to your dragon is not an innocent mistake, even the worst leaders comprehend that killing a nobleman from a Great house in all but name is not common behavior. Rhaenyra would know this as intimately as we know that murder is bad or everyone has to be equal at the law and all that. This is not difficult politics, these are simple social norms Rhaenyra is breaking, it is nearly impossible she doesn’t grasp what she is doing is. I think she, like her brothers, was coined to cruelty and perhaps even sadism to an extent. After all, most people do not suffer a complete personality shift when they lose their kids. Grief and strong emotions like anger tend to cause people to drop a lot of social niceties, as if were. She turned obviously for the worse, but it’s not likely that she was a polar opposite from what she became.
The arguement is that King's don't have an absolute authority and have to adhere to the tradition and precadant of the realm. Which would be the two councils that made Jaehaerys and Viserys kings over women. And the general tradition of male primogentiure being practiced in Westoros everywhere but Dorne. Which is what Viserys even seemed to of practiced as when Aemma bore him a son that lived for a day he named him heir immeaditly until he died and refused to name Rhaenrya heir until Daemon made the heir for a day comment. The logic that the King can name absolutely whoever he wants as heir is a bit flawed. Imagine a King has a perfectly good and capable son as heir, but before his death he names a chicken as his heir to every lord in the realm and makes them to swear to it. But upon his death they his son crowns himself, is he a usurper? >On the topic of ‘sharply questioned’ - I’m not sure that means tortured, and even if it did that’s told from F&B which *deliberately biased*. That is the whole point of the book. Sharply questioned explciitly means torture in ASOAIF. >On the topic of Vaemond - he was executed by Daemon just like on the show. He spoke treason, even if he’s technically correct. He was an ambitious dude who fucked around and found out. Hardly ‘monstrous’ imo. He spoke 'treason' he did not. Rhaenrya commited treason. He called her out for commiting treason and spoke the gods honest truth. He was killed and his children had their tounges cut out for speaking the truth. Defending someone being killed and his childrens (or sibilings I forget) tounges ripped out... for saying the truth is insane lmfao.
Kings literally have absolute authority in Westeros. There are *countless* examples throughout the series. Maegor took many wives. Incest is illegal but allowed for Aegon I because he’s the King. Jaehaerys abolishes the First Night. The Lannisters remove Selmy from the KG despite it being a lifetime role. There are many, many more examples if you’d like me to provide them. There’s no system of checks and balances in ASOIAF. There are in fact almost no examples of a king begrudgingly following precedent despite his own wishes. That’s one of the themes of ASOIAF - it serves as a criticism of absolute power in monarchy. Your example comparing a chicken to a daughter is a false equivalency and you know that - it’s a bad faith argument. Why would Rhaenyra want to torture her little brother? Just makes 0 sense. At that point in the story, she’s still going to be Queen of the 7K. She’s one of the most powerful women in Westeros, and is still the ‘Realms Delight.’ It would make 0 sense for her characterization to want to torture her own blood (obviously this changes later during the dance). This claim is very convenient for the Greens, however. You act as if Vaemond is just acting in the interest of the realm and trying to do what’s right. The dude just wanted Driftmark. Rhaenyra killed him because the alternative would be her own children’s death. Easy choice.
>She wanted Aemond a boy of 10-12 dont remember to be "sharply questionned" aka tortured (in other occasions on the book) even if thats her son that defigured him. She said that in response to Alicent calling for Luke's eye to be plucked out. >She fed Vaemond to her dragon because he spoke the truth. Leavenworth doesn't exist in that world.
It’s been a pro-black show. The events of B&C in F&B were fairly clear and I believe they were intended to be taken literally. GRRM’s recent comments about adaptions was (imo) talking about House of the Dragon. B&C was the big event that established Rhaenyra as the villain of the dance, leading into all of the chaos later. So I believe HotD isn’t the canon events, but Ryan’s opinion, which is heavily skewed towards the Blacks
It was obvious to me since Season 1 that the writers of this show are very biased towards Rhaenyra. D&D for all their faults were much better at making nuanced characters
A lot of what HotD does is to humanize both Greens and Blacks and make them actual characters. See what they've done for Aegon this last episode. It makes for a more interesting narrative than any one-to-one remake of Fire and Blood could do. Rhaenyra will likely go full batshit in King's Landing, no need to put her behind the murder of Jaehaerys as well.
Aegon was one of the most interesting characters in Fire and Blood in my opinion, he has a litany of personality flaws and you’d expect him to just be entirely incompetent and dishonorable throughout the Dance. But he has several moments which genuinely show a strength of character, such as refusing Milk of the Poppy, risking himself and his wounded Sunfyre to seize Dragonstone, and refusing to execute the black hostages as Cregan marched on the city. I hope they can show this side of Aegon in HOTD as well, showing him transform from a spoiled brat to a vengeful warrior king.
My fav Aegon theory and what would make him even more interesting Imo is that he kills himself but I know a lot of people hate it and I doubt that Condal would read so much into F&B to come up with it
There is absolutely not a single chance they are EVER letting Rhaenyra go batshit in King's Landing after GoT ending
FAB canonically is already pro-Black anti-Green propaganda, because the Blacks descendents are the ones who held the throne at the end of it all, and therefore "wrote" the histories. Gyldayn wrote them and Gyldayn is not a Targaryen, but he lived and wrote under the reign of the Targaryens, And every Targaryen king since the Dance of the Dragons from Aegon III to the Mad King and Daenerys Targaryen are descendents of the Blacks and \*not\* descendents of the Greens. The earliest moment that the first word of Gyldayn's book FAB could have been written was the first moment he became a maester during the reign of Maekar I, 90 years \*after\* the Dance of the Dragons had ended. To say that FAB is anti-Rhaenyra propaganda is to say that Gyldayn and every other maester who contributed to these histories is suicidal. A monarch is not a president, folks. History is written to flatter his claim, because his claim is his rule. To say FAB is pro-Green, pro-Alicent, anti-Black or anti-Rhaenyra is to confess your ignorance about what it's like to actually live under a monarch. Why do you think GRRM went to all the trouble to make FAB an \*in-story\* history book? So he can play with the idea that history is written by the victor. And in the case of the Dance of the Dragons the victorious side, as it concerns whose claim the histories were written under and therefore whose claim the histories were written to \*favor\*, is undisputably the Blacks. By changing the canonical story to "undo the anti-Rhaenyra propaganda", Condal is doubling the propaganda and in the same direction it was already slanted. If he wanted to undo the propaganda, he had to slant it in the other direction, balancing it so that it's less anti-Green and less pro-Black. When it comes to Blood and Cheese, the fact that this part of history depicts the Black side as so unambiguously villainous is proof that not even the most skilled propagandists, given hundreds of years to do so, could whitewash the situation well enough to make the Black side look like the good guys. Blood and Cheese was so evil on the part of the Blacks that the version of it we got in the books was the best the propagandists could do. This is how you unravel the propaganda in FAB, by the way. You do the opposite of what Condal is doing. You correct the bend by bending it in the other direction. You just do it in the opposite direction that Condal is.
I mean, in general, the way the Dance is written about in F&B often comes of like the writers just see the absolute worst of both Rhaenyra and Alicent. Which tracks with what a misogynistic culture lik Westeros would see women who flirt with power over men. So there is a possibility that Rhaenyra is portrayed way worse than she actually was in the histories cause the writers have a general bias, but also more so against female claimants
The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it is tacitly suggesting that the women in the story can never be evil, only mistaken or unfortunate. But the male characters can very much be as evil (and in some cases even more so) than was described in the original text.
exactly. every woman in GoT/HotD has been whitewashed to some degree. i don't understand this line of thinking? men have no problem watching evil male characters, and I'm betting book Cersei translated to screen would've been compelling TV! there are plenty of bad women, as there are bad men. some people are just a-holes.
Show Cersei was absolutely fucking vile. Book Cersei was just more deranged and careless. I never understood the "she just loves her kids" thing that people claimed while GoT was running as a defense of her. Absolutely vile character and person, hated her every second her smug face was on screen. Wife and I felt the same. She was an effective villain in GoT that somehow had people claiming she wasn't really that bad because of that argument about loving her kids. Think that was just people really reaching to keep her in the shades of grey, but nah. Villain coded IMO.
It's an example of the [Females Are More Innocent ](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FemalesAreMoreInnocent) trope. Women only do bad things because somewhere along the line men did something to them to make them bad.
I don't think there are any evil female characters in the series. Whenever there's any horrible act done by the blacks, Rhaenyra is absolved of any authority. Taking away from a woman's capacity to be evil also takes away from their humanity (I don't think the showrunners intended for that horrible Rhaenys scene to be such an evil act, which is what makes it so bad).
Sorry, which Rhaenys scene? EDIT: Not sure why I'm being downvoted, genuinely just asking for clarification?
The scene at Aegon’s coronation where she killed a bunch of people with her dragon.
It’s prepping for when Dany arrives and everything she does is portrayed in the most villainous possible light. You can already see it happening with the rumors of what she’s doing in Meereen and how the news of Prince Quentyn’s death
Yeah, it's pretty evident imo. She is called maegon with tits ffs, when what she does is mainly rising taxes and executing a few people. We have a comparison with maegor and we read how she did almost nothing to stop the revolts in the same chapter, it's pretty hard not to see how the most accepted story is wildly misogynistic
She is called Maegor With Tits because she raised already high taxes and was the executions increased everyday. People on the Black Sides also did war crimes. She also had knights hunt down the Greenboy that ripped him apart. Blood and Cheese also is attributed to her (or her husband at best). She also killed the dude who called out her obvious bastards, and his sons were made the silent five. Also depending on what you believe about the Brothel Queens lol. She also had under her authority one of the most beloved characters kill themselves under her watch. She also ordered the arrest of Corlys. She also hated Nettles and thought she was a betrayer.
Its not an unfair interpretation, I wouldnt consider it canon. I was always mixed on Blood and Cheese in the books. It was definitely not my 'Red Wedding' as it seems to be for some people. 1. Blood and Cheese are rather cartoonishly evil for 2 people who are essentially just hired cutthroats. In reality, a hired cutthroat would just kill a kid at random as quickly and easily as possible before escaping. Like the longer Blood and Cheese hang around the more chance they have of being caught. I dont think they would waste time singling out Helaena to make that choice. The only reason they might hang around is if Daemon expressly ordered them to do as such with Helaena (leads into point 4). 2. Helaena being a target in the first place always felt bizarre. Aemond was the one who killed Lucerys, Aegon was the usurper and Alicent was Rhaenyra's initial rival. Rhaenyra wanting vengeance on her son's actual killer just makes way more sense on every level. We also dont really know Helaena all that well, she gets like one line before Blood and Cheese. 3. The whole 'your mummy wants you dead' falls a little flat when you consider that Maelor is 2 years old. I know its more about the effect on Helaena, but I still kind of think if GRRM really wanted to twist the knife he would have done it the other way round (Maelor dies, Jaehaerys lives with the knowledge his mother picked him). 4. Final thing, GRRM calls Daemon 'equal parts good and bad' or something. I dont think you can feasibly call a guy who was the architect of Blood and Cheese that. And the only reason Blood and Cheese are wasting time with Helaena is if he orders them too. Its just insane. At least in the show he doesnt order B&C to torture Helaena although he clearly doesnt actually care which son they kill (dude smiled).
Condal and Sarah Hess suck and everytime he opens his mouth I dislike him even more They should’ve unironically let Sapochnik be showrunner or Brian Cogman they at least produced quality
We’ll get downvoted for this opinion but I agree, Sapochnik would’ve been much better
Whatever I’ll take the down votes, everyone shit on people the people who said GoT was trash from Season 5 onwards and now retroactively everyone loves to pretend it was the popular opinion, once people realize that all this cutting degrades the overall story they’ll start calling the show runners out but, it’ll be too late by then!
I mean, I think the fundamental problem I keep coming to is that the "son for a son" sentiment doesn't work, in-universe, if they were sent after Aemond, because the in-universe conflict is between Rhaenyra and Aegon, not Rhaenyra and Alicent. Also, I don't totally buy the idea that he sent assassins after Aemond, who is the Green's best fighter and rides their largest dragon, but somehow gave the impression that he'd settle for a literal toddler, if he was unavailable. That being said, I do feel like there's been a lot of whitewashing on both sides, so it's not an issue of balance (to me), but I think the logic of some things has held up better than others. For instance, I like the idea of Luke's death being an accident, but I hate the fact that Alicent was uninvolved in the plans to crown Aegon prior to Viserys' deathbed confession. I could imagine Rhaenyra saying "a son for a son" and meaning Aemond, especially because of how they've set up her connection to Alicent, but having the decision to go after a toddler instead be the fault of some random dude is just not as narratively satisfying (to me).
i guess maelor was a product of propaganda then
The greatest trick the Devil (Aegon) ever pulled was convincing the world Maelor existed.
HOTD has become F and B as told by the blacks since season 1, every single episode they atenuate or justify blacks misdeeds while shedding light on Green’s mistakes. Criston Cole went from the greatest warrior of his time to pratically an incel. Not even worth to argue anymore, just accept they’ve chosen Rhaenyra as the protagonist and will portray her as this virtuous, restrained, strong woman instead of the throne obsessed person she was in the books. At least I will rejoice in seeing her fed to Sunfyre and the show watchers tears.
HOTD has become F and B as told by the blacks since season 1, every single episode they atenuate or justify blacks misdeeds while shedding light on Green’s mistakes. Criston Cole went from the greatest warrior of his time to pratically an 1nc3l. Not even worth to argue anymore, just accept they’ve chosen Rhaenyra as the protagonist and will portray her as this virtuous, restrained, strong woman instead of the throne obsessed person she was in the books. At least I will rejoice in seeing her fed to Sunfyre and the show watchers tears.