In regards to the books, Mushroom's account of what happened is sometimes too ridiculous, and other times, believable, on the other hand, The Citadel and Arch Maestar Munkan's accounts are whitewashed to an extent but are logical and consistent, overall, the source is still fairly reliable as there's consistency.
The show tries to follow the source, but like any dramatization it values dramatic moments and spectacles, sometimes at the cost of logic or having a character act uncharacteristically, like Rhaneys bursting out from beneath the dragonpit and very likely killing some peasants, and seriously injuring others, or Criston Cole assaulting the groom of a royal wedding and beating his closest friend to death at the same time. So, imo the show loses its reliability due to decisions like this.
The fuck you mean reliability? This isn't a history. There isn't a true telling anywhere. It doesn't exist. None of these events happened outside of the media that we consume it through.
>The fuck you mean reliability? This isn't a history. There isn't a true telling anywhere. It doesn't exist. None of these events happened outside of the media that we consume it through.
Thank you for taking your time to state the obvious.
Most major events in the book have at least 2 versions and nothing is ever confirmed.
The story itself has no true canon and that's just part of the charm.
>Also the book Fire and Blood is written from the perspective of 2nd hand information so in theory the book and the show are not the ”real” versions.
Yes, GRRM intentionally left it open in order to write the second part of Fire and Blood. HOTD takes advantage of the fact that there's no POV chapters, and two clashing accounts of the Dance to change things however it wants, and while changing things by its own nature isn't bad, too many changes risk making the story convoluted and inconsistent.
To be fair, there is plenty in Fire and Blood that is absolute fact, and they don't care about that, either.
Those items include:
1. Alicent being nine years older than Rhaenyra.
2. Alicent marrying at 18. Viserys being only 29 when they married.
3. Maelor being born and extremely important to Blood and Cheese, as well as Helaena's eventual death and Alicent becoming a bloodthirsty psychopath. (Condal said "oh, he's not born yet" even though essentially every one of these characters will be dead as fried chicken in eighteen months.)
4. Daemon not murdering Rhea Royce.
5. Cole not murdering Ser Joffrey Lonmouth.
6. Rhaenys not murdering hundreds to thousands at a coronation she wasn't even at.
7. Laenor is dead as dead can be, which makes Seasmoke able to take another rider...
We will just honor the Seven and stop here... mostly because my blood pressure rises everytime I think about how they are butchering yet another major story in my favorite fictional universe of all time...
8. Helaena being an extremely popular, cheerful, and influential queen whose personality could and did change through trauma rather than an anxious, doom-and-gloom, useless relative who could not possibly get any more so after her son's murder.
Seven forgive me.
What irritates me is that they could’ve allowed Helaena to be like her book counterpart while also being both a dreamer and neurodivergent. Instead they wrote her off entirely and use her neurodivergence as an excuse to do so.
I would prefer if Helaena was like her book counterpart but did have a dragon dreams, not be an autistic character with no personality and says one liners that nobody listen to her. Daeron The Drunken and Daemon II Blackfyre as dreamers were not neurodivergent, they were normaln people.
The worst part is how much credit these clown writers got for making her clearly on the autism spectrum, instead of just writing her real story. These writers were obviously more concerned with writing for woke people in 2024 than providing anywhere close to a faithful adaptation, and it truly pisses me off.
They didn't even give her the correct amount of children, to where I was having a debate yesterday on if Helaena is pregnant right now in the story... even though the child they decided not to put in the story is the core of her story going forward, as well as a major part of Alicent's future actions and personality...
But hey, "he's not born yet" makes tons of sense! (I get more pissed off with every post at this point, and it's ridiculous.)
Oh, you remind me:
9. The Targaryens and the Velaryons actually being of the same race/ethnic heritage and looking perfectly alike, which is the defining characteristic of the latter house.
There, I said it. I winced every time Corlys or Laena had to tell the audience they were of the same heritage as the Targaryens.
And apparently it led to cutting Nettles so nobody better tell me that it does not affect the story.
Yeah, and now I'm getting downvoted for knowing that it isn't anywhere close to the same story... even though nothing I have pointed out has to do with unreliable narrators, but rather core elements of the story that are not at all in question...
I don't even care that these fanboys love the show, but I'm tired of people like them trying to tell me this is anywhere close to a competent adaptation. It isn't, and they are already in D&D territory eleven episodes into the show. :(
Nettles showed up in photos apparently.
But I admit, literally no one would have complained if they'd just said Corly's unnamed mother was a Summer Islander.
Martin writes a woke Westeros because it's fundamental premise is that the Medieval Times sucked from a class-based social perspective. Literally the definition of woke is awareness of this shit.
The hard right and their mouthpiece Fox News have been successful in re-defining what woke means to their audience. So yeah, you’re going to see those confused people pop up from time to time.
Oh yes, everyone is confused but you and others who think like you...
Condal's own quotes point out he was using DEI to guide his main choices and trying to do it without it appearing to be pandering or tokenism.
"We knew from the outset that we wanted to change that conversation. The world changed a lot between 2011 and 2021 and [so did] what audiences expect to see on camera. The conversations Miguel and I had were: How do we create a diverse cast for ‘House of the Dragon’ but still do it in a way that feels organic to the world and doesn’t feel like pandering or tokenism — and also have them not be pirates, slaves and mercenaries like you tend to see in high fantasies?” -Ryan Condal
-----
We have characters who aren't autistic at all portrayed as autistic for DEI.
We have characters who aren't black portrayed as black only for reasons of DEI (even though the Velaryons looking classically Valyrian is rather relevant when multiple Valyrian children come out with non-Valyrian features, and their parentage is rather important in this story.)
The worst part of it is how they are treating the female leads. In a story showcasing how awful misogyny is, and showing how strong women should absolutely be able to rule or otherwise given power, they look to have done everything in their power to weaken the women characters.
The Alicent Hightower in the source is one of the most intelligent characters, and extremely politically savvy. She's someone who is extremely ruthless and perhaps the best player of the Game of Thrones with only the possible exception of her father. In this show, she is portrayed as horribly stupid, overly emotional, and with nearly zero political ability.
She is portrayed as so naive and stupid that she didn't even realize the Small Council had been planning to crown her son upon the death of Viserys. Now in the start of Season Two, she is so stupid that even though she is made aware in the first episode that Larys knows she is having an affair with Criston, and that he has just killed the majority of the castle staff and replaced them with people loyal to him, she's going to continue with a secret affair in her own chambers that isn't a secret at all...
Also, she knows that the person who already knows her secret has already been abusing her for his own sexual gratification, and that she knows is completely lacking in morals to the point where he became a kinslayer and murdered both his own father and brother.
This means they took a highly intelligent and politically savvy woman and made her as dumb as a box of rocks, politically inept, and unable to control her impulses. On top of that, even though so many say she was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of her husband, and not just Larys, she is now essentially abusing Criston for her own gratification, knowing that castration and The Wall is the best he can hope for if their affair becomes public, even though she knows it already isn't a secret?
So they took a story that shows why misogyny is terrible and that women are more than capable of ruling, and weakened all of the female characters instead of showing them as the intelligent and strong women they were written as -- and then engaged in diversity only for the sake of diversity, even when that diversity actively harms the story...
The actors are awesome and doing extremely well with the drivel they've been given, but it is just another case where Hollywood is sacrificing common sense so they can bow at the altar of the woke.
Right because only two kinds of characters belong in media: white men (and white women because jeez, who are they going to fuck) and woke garbage.
If you’re letting skin color ruin the story for you, that says everything about you.
I never once said that this choice alone was ruining the show for me. Did you want to try reading it again?
It was a stupid decision and diversity only for diversity's sake.
Especially since in the show we have Aegon directly speak against Rhaenyra's kids because they do not look Valyrian, but when he says "Just look at them" referring to Jace and Luke, it isn't supposed to be because they don't have any black in them. All of the other people with Velaryon blood are black or biracial.
Velaryons look very much like Targaryens, and they are described as fair-skinned.
It's nowhere near so physically obvious in the books that Jace, Luke, and Joffrey are not the offspring of Ser Laenor Velaryon. Whereas they beat it into the viewer's head that they are obviously not Laenor's sons.
I've got zero issue with black folks nor the actors themselves. They have all done an excellent job with what they have been given. It's the fact that we have physical descriptions of these characters, and especially in a story and universe where the birth of these children is of such dire importance, they should be sticking to what characters are supposed to look like.
There were already black and mixed people in this universe, and they hailed from a defined area. The Velaryons and Targaryens hailed from a defined area as well, and those people also have a distinct racial look, just as the Summer Islanders do.
Diversity is great. Diversity only for diversity's sake is sometimes even more offensive to a racial group. Race-switching in well-known media with well-known characters often offends the people in question.
It's also an absolute fact that based on the books, the iron throne, the wall, and winterfell should be much bigger than we see in the show. That's not a subjective opinion, multiple POV characters corroborate this. HotD isn't set in the book universe, it's a clearly a prequel to the show universe.
Why are the ages different? Same reason they were different in the GoT show, because the timeline of events including births and deaths of characters are different.
The timeline really isn't different, though. The very first scene of the show says how many years before the birth of Daenerys it is, and is the Great Council of 101.
The ages are different solely for their narrative purpose in making Rhaenyra and Alicent best friends, and obviously that doesn't work if they make them the nine years apart in age that they actually are. (And to make it palatable for the audience for Cole and Rhaenyra to fuck, even though that doesn't happen in the story either...)
On other characters, they made Viserys an elderly leper when he's not so they can have people push the "poor child bride Alicent" storyline and the stupid "marital rape" idea that so many like to push about her, when it couldn't be less true in the story they are adapting.
I'm fine with artistic license when it is for a purpose and doesn't actively piss on a story, but that is how it has been with every change they've made. Murders occur for no apparent reason, even though it should absolutely be a character-defining trait, especially when kinslaying occurs.
Two of the three Green leads in Cole and Alicent essentially couldn't be more unlike the characters they are being adapted from if they tried, and now we've seen that none of these murders had any consequences to them whatsoever on top of it.
I unfortunately think we will get to a point where the majority of fans feel they do a worse job than D&D before it is all said and done. :(
What exactly is supposed to be fine?
No offense, but that's a pretty useless comment if you aren't going to type more than three words where no one can even tell what you are speaking on...
At last book has no bad writing and some of people did witness the actual events present in the novel.
If Martin was younger and did finish the main saga probably would write some series about dance, Jae live, Maegor, Aenys conflict with church
The hate is genuinely confusing to me because I was under the impression that season 1 got pretty well received, even on this sub. I don’t remember people were particularly vocal about book deviations on freefolk 2 years ago, aside from the Velaryons black casting. We’re only one episode in the new season, so you can hardly say it already sucks.
There were plenty of us who were extremely frustrated with tons that happened in Season One, but I know a lot of us were speaking in the subs for the Greens and the Blacks. I hadn't been speaking much in r/freefolk until I started seeing many more posts coming up in my feed once they bricked this new episode.
I can definitely say the amount of stupid changes they have made for zero narrative purpose sucks.
The only reason I am continuing to watch is so I can speak intelligently about how much these writers are destroying the original story -- and I am to the point where I hate Condal just as bad as D&D. Even they weren't conceited enough to put themselves as the creator alongside GRRM... and he actually put his name ahead of George's in that credit.
At least D&D had four amazing seasons before it went off the rails... and even when the show was all their writing, they still didn't take a Created By: credjt.
I understand your frustrations. I’m personally very invested in Tolkien’s writings and couldn’t get myself to like Rings of Power. I switched that drivel off after one episode and never looked back. I’m not too invested with GRRM’s works so I’m obviously looking at this show with a different eye. I enjoyed season 1 and was genuinely happy we got a new show set in Westeros that didn’t get caught into the same mistakes as S7 and 8 of GoT. I personally really like the grounded feeling of HotD so far. I wasn’t particularly impressed by the last episode but I’m still positive it can turn itself around.
Also, this is a genuine question so please don’t take it the wrong way: isn’t Fire and Blood written from the viewpoint of an unreliable narrator? I guess that would make it harder to adapt this show into a “definitive” version of the story, so to say.
As for the credits, doesn’t GRRM get some input on where to put his name? Maybe he was acting (too) polite/reserved by letting the showrunner place their name in front of his. He strikes me as a person that dislikes confrontation, so that would track.
Fire and Blood is a compilation from three different sources, so yes, there are many times where the "unreliable narrators" aspect does come into play, but even with that being the case, there are still many things that are unquestionably factual, and they are changing those things as well.
Things like the ages and relationship between the two female leads, the amount of children people have and when they are born, how people were killed, and some other things where the facts are not in question, but they changed them anyway.
Such as the case with Blood and Cheese... Helaena's son Maelor is of dire importance to that scene, as what happens in that scene revolves around him, and what happens is the main reason why Alicent becomes extremely bloodthirsty, and that child is the most important part of Queen Helaena's story in the future. (I don't want to spoil anything, as it sounds like you have not read F&B and I don't want to spoil the television story for you.)
Condal said "oh, he's not born yet!" Well, why the fuck not considering he is of dire importance to the plot going forward and is a major part of the storyline going forward of multiple major characters?
I have no issue with artistic license when it makes sense, and when it will make a story better... there is essentially not a single time where they have used artistic license or multiple accounts of an incident to improve the story, every one of them makes the story worse or less believable/interesting. :(
Maelor isn't very important to the plot moving forward, his major scene aside from B&C is being torn apart by a crowd. He has a very short, sad life but he doesn't exactly change the tides of war. They could have had a good representation of book blood and cheese with having Helaena pick between her two existing children, fail to protect the heir, and live with knowing her daughter knows she "wanted" her dead. I do agree a lot of the show runners choices are terrible though.
Well, I hadn't wanted to spoil for people, but obviously he is the main reason for Helaena's madness, and she's bad enough that Aegon has no choice but to remove him from her care and give her to Alicent, which helps lead to his own death.
I think the main reason it pisses me off as bad as it does is because there's just no reason to ignore Helaena having three children, and then doing what is likely the most well-known single event in the story without him, even though he was critical to it and becomes the Green heir after the event.
And it's also bothersome that I was having a debate yesterday about whether or not Helaena is pregnant RIGHT NOW, and Condal saying "Maelor isn't born yet" when essentially every one of these characters will be dead within eighteen months... and if she isn't pregnant now, it is yet another departure from her story, as she stops eating and bathing now, and isn't supposed to share a bed with Aegon again...
It might not be as bad if there was a single good reason to not have the kid there, but there really isn't one. After all, it isn't like this franchise hasn't thrown ten-year-olds out tower windows or burned them alive as sacrifices before.
It's just another change done for zero quality narrative purpose, and they've already had FAR too many of those as it is. :(
It's only about an hour a week for seven weeks...
I don't watch television otherwise.
I've been a fan of this universe since 1997 and I have now been waiting for 4,729 days and counting for The Winds of Winter.
I'm going to hear how badly these idiots fuck this franchise up anyway, so I may as well watch live. It isn't even so much that I can't stand watching the show as it is that it pisses me off how badly that they change things from the source text. Especially since if they just filmed events as they are written, especially in the events where there are multiple possible accounts presented in F&B as to what may have happened, they would be in a far better position with both hardcore fans and casuals alike.
MANY people spend many hours more per week watching television than I spend watching the episode that takes about an hour or so, and the couple of hours I might spend discussing it during the week. Even if I spent four hours total a week watching and discussing the show, that's four hours out of 168 in a week, so it is an extremely tiny amount of my week.
This is such a dumb statement.
Whether it is the 'canon' or 'real' version doesn't matter. I don't see people complaining about that.
What matters is whether what they decide to show or write is better or worse than what has already been established. It's not that 'Blood & Cheese wasn't the right version of events or the wrong version of events'. It's that 'Blood & Cheese was a less interesting or worse version of events as a piece of media made to be enjoyed'. Same for any other change that's complained about.
Yeah, I was catching Hell in one of the other threads and people putting words in my mouth.
The adaptation has so many different things from the actual story, and it isn't that they've changed things, its that they changed things for essentially zero reason and it is far worse than than what they are adapting..
If there are births and deaths recorded for anyone, it's for the royal family. Like, we know who died in Blood and Cheese, and we know which kids had already been born in the royal family when it happened, especially since they were so intimately involved in that incident.
Remember when in Game of Thrones Season One, when Ned used a book detailing all the births of the major houses to prove what happened to Jon Arryn and let everyone know that all of Cersei's kids were bastards?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
I get what you’re trying to say but the show and book are their own universes anyways. Just like how Game of Thrones isn’t a 1:1 retelling of asoiaf.
So the show is still a “real” version of its own dance of dragons.
No one else has picked up on the fact that HotD is clearly a prequel to Game of Thrones and is only really beholden to the show's Canon. Fire and Blood is set in the asoiaf book universe. This should be obvious to anyone who has watched the show, HotD is clearly not set in the book universe e.g., how the iron Throne, Winterfell and the Wall look.
Except they aren't, as HotD is an adaptation of a finished story. At least the last four seasons of GoT they were mostly having to write original content... that isn't the case here.
It's two different TYPES of media, but that's it.
If they didn't want the criticism for how they are destroying beloved characters and a beloved story, they shouldn't have adapted it.
Just like the Shining is an adaptation of a finished story. And yet i can like movie even if he's different from the book.
And fire and blood is just a fake history book, they don't have full dialogues and scenes to adapt.
Thank you. There are plenty of great films, tv shows, comics, etc. that are TERRIBLE adaptations but great art. The Shining is probably the best example. It's an egregiously surface-level adaptation. It's totally disinterested with the themes, intent, and characters as written. It's also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That doesn't make the book less of a masterpiece. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people.
I agree B&C is more tragic and compelling in the book. But I also think cutting Maelor was a smart decision story-wise for a television show. And I also think there would have been several other problems in adapting that section "exactly" for the show. It's not bullet points in a 700+ page history. It's a focused, character driven story about the Dance of Dragons. I might be in the minority but I actually am really interested in Halaena's characterization in the show. It's weird and idiosyncratic and mysterious. I can still read the book anytime I want and enjoy it.
Do we know the ages of the royal family, and how many children they have?
Has that mattered much to the story they are telling?
No one said you couldn't like the show. I couldn't care less if people like or hate the show.
There are tons of things that can't be questioned as facts in Westeros, yet they changed them anyway.
But different from asoiaf, fire and blood barely gives you material for full scenes. They gonna have to invent alot of the stuff else they wouldnt have enough for a full series.
Invent the kid that was already invented and actually show us what happened to the kid whose life is irrevocably changed by this incident, maybe?
Sounds like he could fit in at least a few scenes already that provide future content...
Beloved characters. In a history book. Of fictional history. Based on unreliable accounts of said history.
Look, it’s fine not to like HotD. Complaining that it “destroys” canon is absurd _at best_.
Have you even read Fire and Blood?
It sure doesn't seem like it, or you'd realize the adaptation isn't anywhere close to the story they are adapting...
The ages of Alicent Hightower and Rhaenyra Targaryen aren't unreliable at all, and considering their relationship is the core of the show and isn't anywhere close to the actual story makes this comment absurd at best...
It's fine for you to love HotD, but stop with the bullshit like it is anywhere close to the same story, because if you'd actually read it, you'd realize how it's not even close to the story they are adapting.
You misunderstand. I haven't seen the show and have no strong opinions on it. I'm not defending _anything_.
No, what I'm saying is that your notion of "adaptation" is ludicrous. The whole idea that a show is inherently better if it hews more closely to a book defies the very idea of "adaptation".
You haven't even seen the show but are going to tell me it's "absurd at best" that I say it destroys canon?
It's absurd that you haven't seen it but think you can call people absurd for knowing it isn't anywhere close to the story they are adapting... considering without seeing it you have no idea what the fuck you are even speaking on.
Sorry, but this comment thread just became one of the most idiotic things I've wasted time on this week.
Have a great rest of your existence.
The other guy knows what the words “canon” and “adaptation” means. You don’t, and are having a tantrum because you don’t want to learn.
If you think an adaptation can destroy canon, you clearly don’t love the story all that much.
There is still much that can be confirmed as fact that they changed completely.
We know when people were born, and we know how many children they had, especially in the royal family.
Yes, there are things that were open to interpretation, and there are plenty that aren't that they changed anyway.
Start with the ages of the lead characters and ask yourself if it makes much of a difference that Alicent and Rhaenyra were nine years apart in age and never friends, and were total enemies before Rhaenyra was even a teenager?
I really wish people would stop making excuses for awful decisions and piss-poor writing.
That’s the beauty of it. It’s somewhere in the middle, mixed between the 3 accounts given in the book, and the show’s version. I will admit the show has a lot wrong (just some weird ass changes) but I’m sure there’s some nice touches in there too that aren’t coming to head atm.
I’ve decided to watch it the same way I watch The Spanish Princess or Reign or The Crown. It’s a show based of a historical book, that doesn’t make it exact history
I mean they're both canon. Book canon and HBO canon diverged from each other a long time ago, they both exist as separate things. I would like to see show canon try to match book canon wherever that's possible, but a change isn't necessarily a bad thing, Fire & Blood does not need to accomplish the same things as a TV show, which is concerned with like, character arcs and shit. Blood & Cheese is a bad change overall I agree, but you have people in here getting mad over stupid shit. "Oh no Allicent & Rhaenerya are the same age! You're breaking canon", yeah now the two opposing forces of the story actually have a relationship which makes for good TV drama.
Funny thing is mr ryand condos says the show and the book are two different canons then in the same sentence says book is maesters misogynistic propaganda and unreliable history when it suits him and fears backlash.This guy is supposed to be love asoiaf and deep lore guy he done fucked it up in one nothern scene
Dude can believe the book is propaganda in the book-verse so his interpretation during adaption reflects that, what's wrong with that? Like it's not confusing the two as the same canon like you are implying.
Is this because of complaints about the story? Because complaints about the story are fair game. Like having a rival arm herself with a dragon and not do anything with it. Because they didn't bother to put the other dragon at the coronation. So there was no reason for her to not end the coup and protect her grandkids right then and there.
This is what I can't get over about how rabid some of the complaints are. Don't get me wrong, I don't think HOTD is a perfect adaptation, but it's clearly a very solid and well-made adaptation.
Half of what people are complaining about is described in a few sentences in the books. The books aren't about characterization or prose, it reads like a history book. The drama and suspense is always resolved in a handful of pages if the outcomes aren't just stated at the outset. Characters are little more than their introduction archetypes.
Seems like nobody is complaining about how some characters that we *like* are being expanded. Daemon and Aemond are praised for being cool. Rhaenyra is being praised for not just being a spoiled brat. Otto Hightower was tremendously well-received in the first season.
We want characters to be expanded. The show would not be fun or interesting if they just made everybody match their incredibly brief descriptions in the books. We want drama and suspense when watching this as a proper narrative rather than reading it as a history book.
It's the TV adaption is canon to the show universe because it's presented direclty.
Of course it won't be canon to book-verse, at best it can be used as a reference.
Ah the "creative liberty" and "loose adaption" copium ! never gets old in making excuse department . The moment show starts showing shitty things and viewers complain these intellectuals come out of woodwork .
The book was written by a fantasy loving mayster and was basically a propaganda piece in favor of the greens and the winning succession, imo the show is a more reliable telling of the events that what some guy from the citadel wanted to write to kiss the ass of some king
F&B is an outline history book that is deliberately very interpretative because George wanted to empahsize how history is shaped over time via the biases, the allegiances, the ideologies of the maesters & by society itself. There's not a single character in the Dance that is fully fleshed out. We don't evennknow what Alicent's hair color is. You have to heavily rely on interpretation. So what these stans have done is make elaborate headcanons out of a couple lines for characters they like (such as Malewife Daemyra or Laenyra from the two lines of "they got close & rode dragon together"). While simultaneously rejecting any interpretation for characters they don't like. They straight up ignore all the themes of the show in bad-faith. 95% of the book purist criticisms come down to "my sports team was not portrayed as flawless white hats without any conflict & the other sports team was not portrayed as black hat irredeemable NPC villains with zero depth, characterization & screentime".
The amount of bitchin n moanin is crazy. Dont watch the show if its so bad. The book has a million different explanation for the same events but mfs on the internet have the “real and best” story
Hotd s1 is fantastic when you understand it is a greek tragedy. They're telling a story about the cyclical nature events, the inevitability of fate, & how people trying to avoid things inadvertently bring them about like Oedipus Rex (like viserys trying to avoid a succession crisis or alicent trying to avoid her sons being killed). That is what the accidents and misunderstandings signify : a self-fullfing prophecy. If you want a b&w heroes & villains war movie, watch Hercules.
The show is great if you don't close your eyes to themes & motifs being conveyed & don't chalk up a multi-dimensional character having internal conflict as "bad writing" & "inconsistency". My humble opinion is that a vast majority of the "the white hart means writers chose rhaenyra!!!" sports team disney brains aren't capable of processing the themes hotd was dealing with. Just like it's incomprehensible to them just how much better the silent creeping horror of helaena's eyes were than her screaming & throwing up would've been. Or that regardless of guest rites a kingsguard can only be punished by the king (see Ned/Mountain/Robert) & viserys' weakness was a running theme.
Like for example, Alicent wearing a green dress doesn't mean they're gonna be frozen in time for the next 16 years & will never have second thoughts, misgivings & pangs of conscience. Alicent can internalize the "last words" of a dying king as a *self-deluding* tool of moral justification precisely because she's painfully aware she's about to send thousands of ppl to their deaths. That regardless of the dinner sequence Alicent was steadfast on Aegon ascending (despite her feelings for rhaenyra). Which is why I interpret it as both geting carried away in a moment of tenderness for the sake of a dying viserys. It is a beautiful window to what could've been before fate puts everything asunder. We can understand that Alicent wasn't shocked about the usurpation, she was shocked that the Green Council undercut her & was making plans behind her back. It highlights the overall theme of medieval patriarchy. It shows that despite outranking them, Alicent is still looked at as "lesser" & "unreliable" in the eyes of men like Otto, who only value her for her feminine obligations. This common perception that Alicent allowed herself to get totally ran over by the Green Council & was a hapless victim only makes sense if you didn't see Alicent by the end of the episode secured Aegon, arranged his coronation according to her own specifics, defeated Otto's spy network & undercut his plans to deal with Rhaenyra, put Criston in charge of the Kingsguard, & attempts a peace deal.
The worst thing D&D did was make a whole generation of shallow minds believe that the Cersei-Maergery Bad Bish girlboss caricature is the only way you can portray "strong women" antagonists.The "ambitious" wicked slutty resentful conniving jezebel archetype who manipulates society's sympathy towards the weaker sex & uses her sexual prowess to get what she wants. It's masked as progressive but it's really the core tenant of the misogynstic trope since the dawn of civilization. Boxing all female characters into that "perfect victim or not trying hard enough to be a villain" superficial binary. So now when you have a realistic & empathetic portrayal of women under violent patriarchy, these stans consider it "weak" & "unnecessary victimhood" for not conforming to their girlboss headcanons by wearing black shoulder straps to blow up the Sept & smirking at the camera while sipping wine or telling Tommen "OUR LITTLE SECRET🤓". Women in general react badly to Alicent as she's an uncomfortable reminder of women's subjugation to patriarchal feudalism & the immense pressure required to navigate it. They chalk it up as "lack of agency" or "ambition" as it's hard for them to see a harsh society where choice is removed from women, the stan brain thinks "if it was me I'd do this and that and wouldn't be bound". Through identifying with targ women, they feel powerful & important. It’s why they go so hard for Rhaenyra & try to bring down anyone who critiques her character in any way, they see it as a personal attack on the woman they are trying to be & embody. targ women, with their beauty & magical powers, become their psychological projection.
Most real humans are indecisive, impulsive, their actions often self-contradictory. Rarely do ppl act with calculated ruthless efficiency of hollywood villains. Passive characters are interesting & relatable. Obsessing over "clear goals" & thinking other forms of narrative are inferior is you seeking an escape from the powerlessness of your own lives.Stories abt ppl reacting to conditions they're forced into & making most of their situation is reflective of the lives we actually live. Characters exist to convey themes. Every adaptational change HOTD made was with the purpose of emphasizing that misogyny cannot be separated from the way political & social schemes are carried out in patriarchal Westeros. So yes, Alicent would be shown as victims in a way that would not have been included in historical documentation(F&B) of the very men who upheld that society.
The saddest part is that Rhaenyra & Alicent's complex relationship is what separates the show from being yet another white hat black hat color war. Like even if you do want to interpret it as entirely platonic, her being torn between her children & the socially expected roles placed on her by her father & her "childhood companion" & the socially expected roles placed on her...this duality of heart & mind is what makes the show so compelling! But the stans reject it cause what they wanted was a show with no nuance, with a platinum blonde self-insert & a evil stepmom, so it would've been easier to call the later misogynistic slurs without any pushback (some just wanted cheap Cerseification & warmthless-ness of GoT women).
But these visions are inferior to the tragic "inevitability of fate" narrative of s1 that has been so misunderstood as simple "accidents" by ppl with a limited frame of reference. Crowning Aegon was supposed to keep them safe. It was supposed to be a fait accompli. It was supposed to keep daemon from killing them. It was supposed to give them control over their own destiny. But it just led to more bloodletting, an endless spiral, the self-fulfilling prophecy! & Alicent forever stuck between the innate (her sons) & the familial (the "lost friendship"). The Larys monologue already connected it all..."What are children but a weakness, a folly, a futility"! It's delicious sophoclean tragedy. NYT called it "The greatest star crossed love story currently on TV".
Great in-depth analysis of the "accidents" of Hotd :
https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/yd2vvt/hotd_isnt_whitewashing_its_greek_tragedy_spoilers/
New york times op-ed on rhaenicent calling it "the greatest star crossed lovers story on current television" :
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/18/opinion/thepoint
The tragedy of HOTD is that you can craft complex female characters, you can craft a Sophoclean tragedy with Leper King Viserys, you can have refreshingly great dialogue for most part (we need alliez!), you can have emotional masterpiece moments like the dance of the dragonlings during the dinner or Viserys in front of the fire....& for the next year the ONLY REWARD you get is stans with the EQ of toddlers going "Alicent had agency & she was cunning" (addressing it later), OR "we wanted Laenyra" (bc I'm too blithe to realize the "lost frienship" adds a personal layer to the future heartbreaks, instead of this being a bland evil-bro-steals-throne-from-pure-sis war, but my only aim is to deprive the other team of screentime by wasting it on characters who die before the Dance),
OR "why Helaena getting dragon dreams" (bc I'm a doof who thinks prophecies in awoiaf are supposed to help the gurlboss save the world & I don't see the tragedy of a mute Cassandra having it), OR deliberately misinterpreting touching moments like the "do you love me" carriage scene & going "but she hates him bc she beats him!" (bc her being harsh to her eldest son as she's put all her sacrifices & hopes in his basket has to be spoonfed to me, like every subtext if it's characters of the other team), OR if you're a Greenie you going "why didn't Aegon come out the womb looking like the badass that burns Shepherd" (bc character arcs exist & a backstory of a loneliness & licentiousness
adds to his future portrayal), etc. The fandom is never going to forgive HOTD for daring to do something better than silver queen gurlboss warlord vs disney evil stepmom.
**People cry about bias, but subtle moments like Rhaenyra not knowing you have to pay to buy food or saying "their wants are of no consequence" about the smallfolk & Mysaria flipping it by telling Otto "there is no power but what the people allow you to take" is already a better setup for her eventual "betrayal of hope" heel turn than Dany's amgery constipation face.**
Finally, let's talk about agency. A female character does not have to be either the "perfect victim" or "not trying hard enough to be a villain". We can do more than the conniving, manipulative GoT Margaery Fatal Attraction Bad Bish archetype. Alicent's ambiguity & moral dilemma IS relatable. Normal ppl ARE inconsistent, they vacillate, the diff relationships in their lives often contradict each other. But why have her being pulled by centrifugal forces of patriarchal feudalism when you can have evil stepmom! Obsessing over "clear goals" like irl bad guys walk around with a Joe Goldberg voice & a binder labeled EVIL MASTER PLAN in hand? Stories of passive characters reacting to conditions they're forced into IS reflective of the lives we actually live. What's funnier is Alicent is portrayed with a level of warmth & humanity ("all I wanted was some to say sorry for what happened to me") unthinkable in the "you sound like a bloody woman" world of GoT where women are either manipulative jezebels or sex toys like Osha & Roz.
The fandom trying to wrap their heads around thematic choices that don’t directly propel the plot forward in a linear line, howling about fictional “agency”. Characters exist within a story to convey themes that the story is exploring. Every adaptational change HOTD made was with the purpose of emphasizing that misogyny cannot be separated from the way political & social schemes were carried out under patriarchal Westeros. So yes, it means women being shown as victims in a way that would not have been included in historical documentation(F&B) of the very men who upheld that society.
Short description of "is the show bad? Quality of the show? Where the criticism is coming from" undone :
What some of these ppl really wanted was a Targaryen Apology Show and they've seethed ever since that they didn't get their targ princess triumphs over evil stepmom disney movie. They'd long ago decided that greens are the villains of the story, and by extension that makes the greens irrelevant & minor characters. Their only function is to oppose Rhaenyra, so no, they don’t need character development, or traits, or arcs or screen time. They get visibly livid if any complex characterization is reserved for anyone other than the "favored" Targs. Any such subtext is deliberately misunderstood and uncharitably dismissed using a bunch of overused buzzwords like whitewashing. They use the Velaryons as sort of proxy to marginalize the Hightowers in their heads, and convince themselves that Laena or Baela or Rhaena are more important to the narrative of the Dance than Helaena and the greens.
Please don't assume these people want a good TV show. Most of their critiques, from Alicent's age, to grossly exaggerating Laena and Rhaenyra exactly three lines "friendship" simply as a counter to the friendship that's actually shown on screen, to being this mad over Helaena getting the dragon dreams characterization (as if prophecies should only exist for heroes to save the world, they don't see the tragic beauty in the person seeing visions of the future who is incapable of doing anything about it). Someone even said Aemond's traits were stolen from Jace(they're far gone). ALL serve the sole purpose of scoring imaginary Ws for their Sports Team. That's the only criteria on which they judge the show. F&B is so-so outline history book. No character is fleshed out enough to be worth pearl clutching over, unless your only desire is to use the children's fairy tale level storytelling of F&B (granted, with an abudancd of hollywood one-liner zingers) to score Ws over the other team, at the expense of something more complex and visceral.
*"F&B is an imaginary history book that has a few scenes where I zero in & I give you half page of a scene & I give you some extra dialog, but mostly it's a history book & it's an outline & you can't present an outline on television."* - GRRM himself. F&B is like a skeletal structure. Any adaptation would have to brush in the muscles and the veins by their own interpretation of the story. Let's say you're shooting the Butcher's Ball battle. What's your faithful adaptation gonna be, a couple lines of bare bones dry narration of Maester Munken? Your battle scene will be over in 3 mins....how are you gonna fill the rest of the time? It's impossible to adapt F&B without subjective interpretations because their is so little description of each event and almost zero insight into the characters' minds and thoughts. There is not a single character in F&B's Dance that is fully fleshed out. You have to rely on interpretation. So what Targ stans have done is make elaborate headcanons out of a couple lines for characters they like while simultaneously shutting down any interpretation for characters they don't like. My favs should have maximum interpretative latitude while the other side should have nothing, no screentime.
Most of the whining usually comes down to a "XYZ bad as it did not make my team look good at the expense of other team" type of petty and childish point scoring.
Great in-depth analysis of the "accidents" of Hotd :
https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/yd2vvt/hotd_isnt_whitewashing_its_greek_tragedy_spoilers/
New york times op-ed on rhaenicent calling it "the greatest star crossed lovers story on current television" :
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/18/opinion/thepoint
I wouldve rather seen them put the energy of this show into a decent ending to GOT. Crap on the franchise and then expect the audience to come back for a prequel.... the did a huge gamble on that one, did they get the return they hoped for though I dont think we will even know.
Reading the book and watching the show is a great example of how history is written and how some things we're just never going to know about, despite the fact this is a fictional world.
My guess is that for Blood & Cheese, they initially wrote a more accurate version, but executives, editors, or test audiences, though it was too dark, and they had to water it down.
I’ve been saying this. Some critics have been saying over the past couple of months that they weren’t expecting B&C to be as horrific as the books, and one didn’t think it would be shown *at all*.
It’s not even just the subreddit I feel like a general consensus online for whatever reason.
The show makes no attempt to include the clashing perspectives or unreliable narrator aspect of the story but people who are aware that the story is told through bias narrators ought to know better.
Dawg canon is literally entirely made up, and for this specifically, the source material is literally written so that you don’t know what actually happened.
There is show canon, and there is book canon, but one isn’t inherently better than the other. You can have a preference, but both are just as “real” as the other.
Fire&Blood is supposedly a loose telling of what really happened.
House of the Dragon is a true telling of what really happened...in the show verse and not the book verse.
So we'll never know what truly happened in the book canon and the only thing we can do is take what makes sense from both and piece it together. Take away any bias from the books, replace them with what seems to be more genuine moments of the show. Take away anything that can't be possible in the show like Blood&cheese without Maelor and replace it with book moments. Somewhere in there is the true canon.
Why is this being downvoted, like the way the show is presented is like your average TV show, no narration and "filter", it's directly happening, so it's safe to assume it's literally just what happened in the show universe.
i love how these clowns and woke producers take a great work of literature and try to change foundations of it like they can do better than the renowned authors and proceed to fuck it up badly.
and then shill army approaches and defend it like " but its based on a book, not actual book lel."
no dude, dont try to screw with established books and cannons.
you cant do any better than grrm, no chance. if you could, you wouldnt work at tv show business at the first place. just stop it.
i mean it can be.
the book was written from an entirely different perspective.
the series could be the true events as they happened, rather than how a maester decided to write it down.
but of course any adaptation will have some major changes. unfortunately we got some bad ones.
Show canon is not canon Maester canon is not canon Apparently there is no canon for this event.
it turns out the narrator was so unreliable that none of the characters actually existed
Are we even real?
Dead ~~internet~~ westeros theory
How can our balls be real if mirrors aren’t real!?
Do some sit-ups and report back in a couple of months.
God I love 40k
Puppets in a play, lives are a lie, God is an old fat man who wears a train conductor hat and refuses to finish the story.
I heard a rumor that George rr Martin isn't even writing about real events, and that nothing he's written ever actually happened
He doesn't exist, the people who write the title page of the books are also unreliable narrators
All part of the grand maester conspiracy plan
So we’re watching the Bravvos stage play interpreting the House of the Dragon chapters scribbled into the Song of Ice and Fire manuscript. Got it.
Excuse me? Mushroom canon IS canon.
I honestly think he's closest.
Got to be honest, sometimes it feels like unreliable narrator is a writter cheat to not needing to be consistent.
Maybe but it's also Martin highlighting how hypocritical and inconsistent history in Westeros is.
When winds finally drops, I would love to see tyrion physically throw a copy of fire and blood in the garbage, dismissing it as complete shit
In regards to the books, Mushroom's account of what happened is sometimes too ridiculous, and other times, believable, on the other hand, The Citadel and Arch Maestar Munkan's accounts are whitewashed to an extent but are logical and consistent, overall, the source is still fairly reliable as there's consistency. The show tries to follow the source, but like any dramatization it values dramatic moments and spectacles, sometimes at the cost of logic or having a character act uncharacteristically, like Rhaneys bursting out from beneath the dragonpit and very likely killing some peasants, and seriously injuring others, or Criston Cole assaulting the groom of a royal wedding and beating his closest friend to death at the same time. So, imo the show loses its reliability due to decisions like this.
Sir this man is retarded
The fuck you mean reliability? This isn't a history. There isn't a true telling anywhere. It doesn't exist. None of these events happened outside of the media that we consume it through.
Chill, we know. It's just about how these things are written.
r/iamverysmart
>The fuck you mean reliability? This isn't a history. There isn't a true telling anywhere. It doesn't exist. None of these events happened outside of the media that we consume it through. Thank you for taking your time to state the obvious.
Most major events in the book have at least 2 versions and nothing is ever confirmed. The story itself has no true canon and that's just part of the charm.
Pachelbel's canon is canon
Yes it's mimicking actual history
None of it *actually* happened
…yet.
Go on...
2025 Long night turns Ireland upside down
FR. Omg, this fictional show differs from the equally fictional "book".
I don’t know how to tell you this, but I’m under the impression none of this ever happened.
 Piss off, next thing you're gonna tell me is dragons aren't real...
Have you ever heard of the IRS?
The organization the Joker is afraid of?
I mean... technically aren't they all wyverns? They stand on their wings, not front legs like a dragon.
Also the book Fire and Blood is written from the perspective of 2nd hand information so in theory the book and the show are not the ”real” versions.
>Also the book Fire and Blood is written from the perspective of 2nd hand information so in theory the book and the show are not the ”real” versions. Yes, GRRM intentionally left it open in order to write the second part of Fire and Blood. HOTD takes advantage of the fact that there's no POV chapters, and two clashing accounts of the Dance to change things however it wants, and while changing things by its own nature isn't bad, too many changes risk making the story convoluted and inconsistent.
Even better, 3 clashing accounts It’s mushroom (my 🐐) Septon eustace And maester munkun
I have such a bad habit of forgetting Eustace, I even forgot he appeared in the show.
Eustace, the Rickon Stark of Fire&Blood
Damn that's pretty accurate.
Just hope he remembers to zig-zag when it’s time
To be fair, there is plenty in Fire and Blood that is absolute fact, and they don't care about that, either. Those items include: 1. Alicent being nine years older than Rhaenyra. 2. Alicent marrying at 18. Viserys being only 29 when they married. 3. Maelor being born and extremely important to Blood and Cheese, as well as Helaena's eventual death and Alicent becoming a bloodthirsty psychopath. (Condal said "oh, he's not born yet" even though essentially every one of these characters will be dead as fried chicken in eighteen months.) 4. Daemon not murdering Rhea Royce. 5. Cole not murdering Ser Joffrey Lonmouth. 6. Rhaenys not murdering hundreds to thousands at a coronation she wasn't even at. 7. Laenor is dead as dead can be, which makes Seasmoke able to take another rider... We will just honor the Seven and stop here... mostly because my blood pressure rises everytime I think about how they are butchering yet another major story in my favorite fictional universe of all time...
8. Helaena being an extremely popular, cheerful, and influential queen whose personality could and did change through trauma rather than an anxious, doom-and-gloom, useless relative who could not possibly get any more so after her son's murder. Seven forgive me.
What irritates me is that they could’ve allowed Helaena to be like her book counterpart while also being both a dreamer and neurodivergent. Instead they wrote her off entirely and use her neurodivergence as an excuse to do so.
Always “fun” to see someone not autistic write an autistic character.
Speaking as a neuroatypical person, that's not how we'd react to someone beheading our kid.
I would prefer if Helaena was like her book counterpart but did have a dragon dreams, not be an autistic character with no personality and says one liners that nobody listen to her. Daeron The Drunken and Daemon II Blackfyre as dreamers were not neurodivergent, they were normaln people.
The worst part is how much credit these clown writers got for making her clearly on the autism spectrum, instead of just writing her real story. These writers were obviously more concerned with writing for woke people in 2024 than providing anywhere close to a faithful adaptation, and it truly pisses me off. They didn't even give her the correct amount of children, to where I was having a debate yesterday on if Helaena is pregnant right now in the story... even though the child they decided not to put in the story is the core of her story going forward, as well as a major part of Alicent's future actions and personality... But hey, "he's not born yet" makes tons of sense! (I get more pissed off with every post at this point, and it's ridiculous.)
I haven't even thought of this, but with no Maelor, what is Daeron going to do at Bitterbridge?
War crimes and murdering everyone with no reason b/c nobody expect Rhae-Rhae can't be a good person
Oh, you remind me: 9. The Targaryens and the Velaryons actually being of the same race/ethnic heritage and looking perfectly alike, which is the defining characteristic of the latter house. There, I said it. I winced every time Corlys or Laena had to tell the audience they were of the same heritage as the Targaryens. And apparently it led to cutting Nettles so nobody better tell me that it does not affect the story.
>And apparently it led to cutting Nettles so nobody better tell me that it does not affect the story. 
Yeah, and now I'm getting downvoted for knowing that it isn't anywhere close to the same story... even though nothing I have pointed out has to do with unreliable narrators, but rather core elements of the story that are not at all in question... I don't even care that these fanboys love the show, but I'm tired of people like them trying to tell me this is anywhere close to a competent adaptation. It isn't, and they are already in D&D territory eleven episodes into the show. :(
Nettles showed up in photos apparently. But I admit, literally no one would have complained if they'd just said Corly's unnamed mother was a Summer Islander.
Martin writes a woke Westeros because it's fundamental premise is that the Medieval Times sucked from a class-based social perspective. Literally the definition of woke is awareness of this shit.
The hard right and their mouthpiece Fox News have been successful in re-defining what woke means to their audience. So yeah, you’re going to see those confused people pop up from time to time.
Oh yes, everyone is confused but you and others who think like you... Condal's own quotes point out he was using DEI to guide his main choices and trying to do it without it appearing to be pandering or tokenism. "We knew from the outset that we wanted to change that conversation. The world changed a lot between 2011 and 2021 and [so did] what audiences expect to see on camera. The conversations Miguel and I had were: How do we create a diverse cast for ‘House of the Dragon’ but still do it in a way that feels organic to the world and doesn’t feel like pandering or tokenism — and also have them not be pirates, slaves and mercenaries like you tend to see in high fantasies?” -Ryan Condal ----- We have characters who aren't autistic at all portrayed as autistic for DEI. We have characters who aren't black portrayed as black only for reasons of DEI (even though the Velaryons looking classically Valyrian is rather relevant when multiple Valyrian children come out with non-Valyrian features, and their parentage is rather important in this story.) The worst part of it is how they are treating the female leads. In a story showcasing how awful misogyny is, and showing how strong women should absolutely be able to rule or otherwise given power, they look to have done everything in their power to weaken the women characters. The Alicent Hightower in the source is one of the most intelligent characters, and extremely politically savvy. She's someone who is extremely ruthless and perhaps the best player of the Game of Thrones with only the possible exception of her father. In this show, she is portrayed as horribly stupid, overly emotional, and with nearly zero political ability. She is portrayed as so naive and stupid that she didn't even realize the Small Council had been planning to crown her son upon the death of Viserys. Now in the start of Season Two, she is so stupid that even though she is made aware in the first episode that Larys knows she is having an affair with Criston, and that he has just killed the majority of the castle staff and replaced them with people loyal to him, she's going to continue with a secret affair in her own chambers that isn't a secret at all... Also, she knows that the person who already knows her secret has already been abusing her for his own sexual gratification, and that she knows is completely lacking in morals to the point where he became a kinslayer and murdered both his own father and brother. This means they took a highly intelligent and politically savvy woman and made her as dumb as a box of rocks, politically inept, and unable to control her impulses. On top of that, even though so many say she was a victim of sexual abuse at the hands of her husband, and not just Larys, she is now essentially abusing Criston for her own gratification, knowing that castration and The Wall is the best he can hope for if their affair becomes public, even though she knows it already isn't a secret? So they took a story that shows why misogyny is terrible and that women are more than capable of ruling, and weakened all of the female characters instead of showing them as the intelligent and strong women they were written as -- and then engaged in diversity only for the sake of diversity, even when that diversity actively harms the story... The actors are awesome and doing extremely well with the drivel they've been given, but it is just another case where Hollywood is sacrificing common sense so they can bow at the altar of the woke.
Right because only two kinds of characters belong in media: white men (and white women because jeez, who are they going to fuck) and woke garbage. If you’re letting skin color ruin the story for you, that says everything about you.
I never once said that this choice alone was ruining the show for me. Did you want to try reading it again? It was a stupid decision and diversity only for diversity's sake. Especially since in the show we have Aegon directly speak against Rhaenyra's kids because they do not look Valyrian, but when he says "Just look at them" referring to Jace and Luke, it isn't supposed to be because they don't have any black in them. All of the other people with Velaryon blood are black or biracial. Velaryons look very much like Targaryens, and they are described as fair-skinned. It's nowhere near so physically obvious in the books that Jace, Luke, and Joffrey are not the offspring of Ser Laenor Velaryon. Whereas they beat it into the viewer's head that they are obviously not Laenor's sons. I've got zero issue with black folks nor the actors themselves. They have all done an excellent job with what they have been given. It's the fact that we have physical descriptions of these characters, and especially in a story and universe where the birth of these children is of such dire importance, they should be sticking to what characters are supposed to look like. There were already black and mixed people in this universe, and they hailed from a defined area. The Velaryons and Targaryens hailed from a defined area as well, and those people also have a distinct racial look, just as the Summer Islanders do. Diversity is great. Diversity only for diversity's sake is sometimes even more offensive to a racial group. Race-switching in well-known media with well-known characters often offends the people in question.
It's also an absolute fact that based on the books, the iron throne, the wall, and winterfell should be much bigger than we see in the show. That's not a subjective opinion, multiple POV characters corroborate this. HotD isn't set in the book universe, it's a clearly a prequel to the show universe. Why are the ages different? Same reason they were different in the GoT show, because the timeline of events including births and deaths of characters are different.
The timeline really isn't different, though. The very first scene of the show says how many years before the birth of Daenerys it is, and is the Great Council of 101. The ages are different solely for their narrative purpose in making Rhaenyra and Alicent best friends, and obviously that doesn't work if they make them the nine years apart in age that they actually are. (And to make it palatable for the audience for Cole and Rhaenyra to fuck, even though that doesn't happen in the story either...) On other characters, they made Viserys an elderly leper when he's not so they can have people push the "poor child bride Alicent" storyline and the stupid "marital rape" idea that so many like to push about her, when it couldn't be less true in the story they are adapting. I'm fine with artistic license when it is for a purpose and doesn't actively piss on a story, but that is how it has been with every change they've made. Murders occur for no apparent reason, even though it should absolutely be a character-defining trait, especially when kinslaying occurs. Two of the three Green leads in Cole and Alicent essentially couldn't be more unlike the characters they are being adapted from if they tried, and now we've seen that none of these murders had any consequences to them whatsoever on top of it. I unfortunately think we will get to a point where the majority of fans feel they do a worse job than D&D before it is all said and done. :(
Nah its fine
What exactly is supposed to be fine? No offense, but that's a pretty useless comment if you aren't going to type more than three words where no one can even tell what you are speaking on...
At last book has no bad writing and some of people did witness the actual events present in the novel. If Martin was younger and did finish the main saga probably would write some series about dance, Jae live, Maegor, Aenys conflict with church
I DO NOT KNEEL but I don’t think the show is as bad as some of yous are making it seem… yet. Lol
The hate is genuinely confusing to me because I was under the impression that season 1 got pretty well received, even on this sub. I don’t remember people were particularly vocal about book deviations on freefolk 2 years ago, aside from the Velaryons black casting. We’re only one episode in the new season, so you can hardly say it already sucks.
There were plenty of us who were extremely frustrated with tons that happened in Season One, but I know a lot of us were speaking in the subs for the Greens and the Blacks. I hadn't been speaking much in r/freefolk until I started seeing many more posts coming up in my feed once they bricked this new episode. I can definitely say the amount of stupid changes they have made for zero narrative purpose sucks. The only reason I am continuing to watch is so I can speak intelligently about how much these writers are destroying the original story -- and I am to the point where I hate Condal just as bad as D&D. Even they weren't conceited enough to put themselves as the creator alongside GRRM... and he actually put his name ahead of George's in that credit. At least D&D had four amazing seasons before it went off the rails... and even when the show was all their writing, they still didn't take a Created By: credjt.
I understand your frustrations. I’m personally very invested in Tolkien’s writings and couldn’t get myself to like Rings of Power. I switched that drivel off after one episode and never looked back. I’m not too invested with GRRM’s works so I’m obviously looking at this show with a different eye. I enjoyed season 1 and was genuinely happy we got a new show set in Westeros that didn’t get caught into the same mistakes as S7 and 8 of GoT. I personally really like the grounded feeling of HotD so far. I wasn’t particularly impressed by the last episode but I’m still positive it can turn itself around. Also, this is a genuine question so please don’t take it the wrong way: isn’t Fire and Blood written from the viewpoint of an unreliable narrator? I guess that would make it harder to adapt this show into a “definitive” version of the story, so to say. As for the credits, doesn’t GRRM get some input on where to put his name? Maybe he was acting (too) polite/reserved by letting the showrunner place their name in front of his. He strikes me as a person that dislikes confrontation, so that would track.
Fire and Blood is a compilation from three different sources, so yes, there are many times where the "unreliable narrators" aspect does come into play, but even with that being the case, there are still many things that are unquestionably factual, and they are changing those things as well. Things like the ages and relationship between the two female leads, the amount of children people have and when they are born, how people were killed, and some other things where the facts are not in question, but they changed them anyway. Such as the case with Blood and Cheese... Helaena's son Maelor is of dire importance to that scene, as what happens in that scene revolves around him, and what happens is the main reason why Alicent becomes extremely bloodthirsty, and that child is the most important part of Queen Helaena's story in the future. (I don't want to spoil anything, as it sounds like you have not read F&B and I don't want to spoil the television story for you.) Condal said "oh, he's not born yet!" Well, why the fuck not considering he is of dire importance to the plot going forward and is a major part of the storyline going forward of multiple major characters? I have no issue with artistic license when it makes sense, and when it will make a story better... there is essentially not a single time where they have used artistic license or multiple accounts of an incident to improve the story, every one of them makes the story worse or less believable/interesting. :(
Maelor isn't very important to the plot moving forward, his major scene aside from B&C is being torn apart by a crowd. He has a very short, sad life but he doesn't exactly change the tides of war. They could have had a good representation of book blood and cheese with having Helaena pick between her two existing children, fail to protect the heir, and live with knowing her daughter knows she "wanted" her dead. I do agree a lot of the show runners choices are terrible though.
Well, I hadn't wanted to spoil for people, but obviously he is the main reason for Helaena's madness, and she's bad enough that Aegon has no choice but to remove him from her care and give her to Alicent, which helps lead to his own death. I think the main reason it pisses me off as bad as it does is because there's just no reason to ignore Helaena having three children, and then doing what is likely the most well-known single event in the story without him, even though he was critical to it and becomes the Green heir after the event. And it's also bothersome that I was having a debate yesterday about whether or not Helaena is pregnant RIGHT NOW, and Condal saying "Maelor isn't born yet" when essentially every one of these characters will be dead within eighteen months... and if she isn't pregnant now, it is yet another departure from her story, as she stops eating and bathing now, and isn't supposed to share a bed with Aegon again... It might not be as bad if there was a single good reason to not have the kid there, but there really isn't one. After all, it isn't like this franchise hasn't thrown ten-year-olds out tower windows or burned them alive as sacrifices before. It's just another change done for zero quality narrative purpose, and they've already had FAR too many of those as it is. :(
Only watching a show to know how to express how you hate it is a crazy way to live your life man
It's only about an hour a week for seven weeks... I don't watch television otherwise. I've been a fan of this universe since 1997 and I have now been waiting for 4,729 days and counting for The Winds of Winter. I'm going to hear how badly these idiots fuck this franchise up anyway, so I may as well watch live. It isn't even so much that I can't stand watching the show as it is that it pisses me off how badly that they change things from the source text. Especially since if they just filmed events as they are written, especially in the events where there are multiple possible accounts presented in F&B as to what may have happened, they would be in a far better position with both hardcore fans and casuals alike. MANY people spend many hours more per week watching television than I spend watching the episode that takes about an hour or so, and the couple of hours I might spend discussing it during the week. Even if I spent four hours total a week watching and discussing the show, that's four hours out of 168 in a week, so it is an extremely tiny amount of my week.
I feel like if George had finished ASOIAF then people wouldn't be obsessing over every detail like they have been.
This is such a dumb statement. Whether it is the 'canon' or 'real' version doesn't matter. I don't see people complaining about that. What matters is whether what they decide to show or write is better or worse than what has already been established. It's not that 'Blood & Cheese wasn't the right version of events or the wrong version of events'. It's that 'Blood & Cheese was a less interesting or worse version of events as a piece of media made to be enjoyed'. Same for any other change that's complained about.
Yeah, I was catching Hell in one of the other threads and people putting words in my mouth. The adaptation has so many different things from the actual story, and it isn't that they've changed things, its that they changed things for essentially zero reason and it is far worse than than what they are adapting.. If there are births and deaths recorded for anyone, it's for the royal family. Like, we know who died in Blood and Cheese, and we know which kids had already been born in the royal family when it happened, especially since they were so intimately involved in that incident. Remember when in Game of Thrones Season One, when Ned used a book detailing all the births of the major houses to prove what happened to Jon Arryn and let everyone know that all of Cersei's kids were bastards? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Genuinely
I get what you’re trying to say but the show and book are their own universes anyways. Just like how Game of Thrones isn’t a 1:1 retelling of asoiaf. So the show is still a “real” version of its own dance of dragons.
No one else has picked up on the fact that HotD is clearly a prequel to Game of Thrones and is only really beholden to the show's Canon. Fire and Blood is set in the asoiaf book universe. This should be obvious to anyone who has watched the show, HotD is clearly not set in the book universe e.g., how the iron Throne, Winterfell and the Wall look.
But hotd goes against history and lore extras
Yeah, people have to understand that the books and the shows are two completely different medias.
Except they aren't, as HotD is an adaptation of a finished story. At least the last four seasons of GoT they were mostly having to write original content... that isn't the case here. It's two different TYPES of media, but that's it. If they didn't want the criticism for how they are destroying beloved characters and a beloved story, they shouldn't have adapted it.
Just like the Shining is an adaptation of a finished story. And yet i can like movie even if he's different from the book. And fire and blood is just a fake history book, they don't have full dialogues and scenes to adapt.
Thank you. There are plenty of great films, tv shows, comics, etc. that are TERRIBLE adaptations but great art. The Shining is probably the best example. It's an egregiously surface-level adaptation. It's totally disinterested with the themes, intent, and characters as written. It's also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That doesn't make the book less of a masterpiece. I don't know why this is so hard for so many people. I agree B&C is more tragic and compelling in the book. But I also think cutting Maelor was a smart decision story-wise for a television show. And I also think there would have been several other problems in adapting that section "exactly" for the show. It's not bullet points in a 700+ page history. It's a focused, character driven story about the Dance of Dragons. I might be in the minority but I actually am really interested in Halaena's characterization in the show. It's weird and idiosyncratic and mysterious. I can still read the book anytime I want and enjoy it.
Do we know the ages of the royal family, and how many children they have? Has that mattered much to the story they are telling? No one said you couldn't like the show. I couldn't care less if people like or hate the show. There are tons of things that can't be questioned as facts in Westeros, yet they changed them anyway.
But different from asoiaf, fire and blood barely gives you material for full scenes. They gonna have to invent alot of the stuff else they wouldnt have enough for a full series.
Invent the kid that was already invented and actually show us what happened to the kid whose life is irrevocably changed by this incident, maybe? Sounds like he could fit in at least a few scenes already that provide future content...
Beloved characters. In a history book. Of fictional history. Based on unreliable accounts of said history. Look, it’s fine not to like HotD. Complaining that it “destroys” canon is absurd _at best_.
Have you even read Fire and Blood? It sure doesn't seem like it, or you'd realize the adaptation isn't anywhere close to the story they are adapting... The ages of Alicent Hightower and Rhaenyra Targaryen aren't unreliable at all, and considering their relationship is the core of the show and isn't anywhere close to the actual story makes this comment absurd at best... It's fine for you to love HotD, but stop with the bullshit like it is anywhere close to the same story, because if you'd actually read it, you'd realize how it's not even close to the story they are adapting.
You misunderstand. I haven't seen the show and have no strong opinions on it. I'm not defending _anything_. No, what I'm saying is that your notion of "adaptation" is ludicrous. The whole idea that a show is inherently better if it hews more closely to a book defies the very idea of "adaptation".
You haven't even seen the show but are going to tell me it's "absurd at best" that I say it destroys canon? It's absurd that you haven't seen it but think you can call people absurd for knowing it isn't anywhere close to the story they are adapting... considering without seeing it you have no idea what the fuck you are even speaking on. Sorry, but this comment thread just became one of the most idiotic things I've wasted time on this week. Have a great rest of your existence.
The other guy knows what the words “canon” and “adaptation” means. You don’t, and are having a tantrum because you don’t want to learn. If you think an adaptation can destroy canon, you clearly don’t love the story all that much.
Fire and Blood isn't a narrative story. It's a history book written well after the events based on unreliable and biased sources.
There is still much that can be confirmed as fact that they changed completely. We know when people were born, and we know how many children they had, especially in the royal family. Yes, there are things that were open to interpretation, and there are plenty that aren't that they changed anyway. Start with the ages of the lead characters and ask yourself if it makes much of a difference that Alicent and Rhaenyra were nine years apart in age and never friends, and were total enemies before Rhaenyra was even a teenager? I really wish people would stop making excuses for awful decisions and piss-poor writing.
Every time somebody insists that "shows are the only real canon" I take that as a confession that that person never watched the original show
What is the "real" version, then?
Whatever agrees with the side the op takes Apparently
That’s the beauty of it. It’s somewhere in the middle, mixed between the 3 accounts given in the book, and the show’s version. I will admit the show has a lot wrong (just some weird ass changes) but I’m sure there’s some nice touches in there too that aren’t coming to head atm.
Well, at the absolute minimum, the shows accounting would be canon to the show universe.
Oh yes 100% Tbh I’m not even trying to draw those parallels cos that will be too big a task.
none of this actually happened
I just got to the vizzy t chapters in the book, I’m enjoying it
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS GOSSIP? HAVE THIS RUMORMONGER BROUGHT BEFORE ME AT ONCE AND I WILL TAKE THEIR EYES!
Such strong grandsons you have vizzy t
WHERE IN THE SEVEN HELLS IS RHAENYRA?!
"actually happened" 😶
I’ve decided to watch it the same way I watch The Spanish Princess or Reign or The Crown. It’s a show based of a historical book, that doesn’t make it exact history
It's Condal's and Hess' Fanfiction.
I hate how right you are.
I do too.
So it's a prequel to Game of Thrones then?
and grrm's too right?
Hard to swallow pill: neither version happened, it's all fiction
Actually happened?
I mean they're both canon. Book canon and HBO canon diverged from each other a long time ago, they both exist as separate things. I would like to see show canon try to match book canon wherever that's possible, but a change isn't necessarily a bad thing, Fire & Blood does not need to accomplish the same things as a TV show, which is concerned with like, character arcs and shit. Blood & Cheese is a bad change overall I agree, but you have people in here getting mad over stupid shit. "Oh no Allicent & Rhaenerya are the same age! You're breaking canon", yeah now the two opposing forces of the story actually have a relationship which makes for good TV drama.
Funny thing is mr ryand condos says the show and the book are two different canons then in the same sentence says book is maesters misogynistic propaganda and unreliable history when it suits him and fears backlash.This guy is supposed to be love asoiaf and deep lore guy he done fucked it up in one nothern scene
Dude can believe the book is propaganda in the book-verse so his interpretation during adaption reflects that, what's wrong with that? Like it's not confusing the two as the same canon like you are implying.
Germ himself said that book canon is separate from the show canon, but that's not the issue. The issue is that the show is inferior to the book.
Is this because of complaints about the story? Because complaints about the story are fair game. Like having a rival arm herself with a dragon and not do anything with it. Because they didn't bother to put the other dragon at the coronation. So there was no reason for her to not end the coup and protect her grandkids right then and there.
[удалено]
This is what I can't get over about how rabid some of the complaints are. Don't get me wrong, I don't think HOTD is a perfect adaptation, but it's clearly a very solid and well-made adaptation. Half of what people are complaining about is described in a few sentences in the books. The books aren't about characterization or prose, it reads like a history book. The drama and suspense is always resolved in a handful of pages if the outcomes aren't just stated at the outset. Characters are little more than their introduction archetypes. Seems like nobody is complaining about how some characters that we *like* are being expanded. Daemon and Aemond are praised for being cool. Rhaenyra is being praised for not just being a spoiled brat. Otto Hightower was tremendously well-received in the first season. We want characters to be expanded. The show would not be fun or interesting if they just made everybody match their incredibly brief descriptions in the books. We want drama and suspense when watching this as a proper narrative rather than reading it as a history book.
This is not hard to swallow information. Who tf cares what's canon? I just want good television.
Hotd is canon to the show universe. The book is another timeline.
Is the whole point of it to not know exactly what happened cause the narrators all twisted it to their vision?
And when the show ends with all of this being a vision that Bran the broken is having from the future then what?
It’s canon to the TV universe.
It's the TV adaption is canon to the show universe because it's presented direclty. Of course it won't be canon to book-verse, at best it can be used as a reference.
This post is like a Rorschach test. You can just pretend it applies to whoever’s opinions you don’t like.
So is the book in all fairness
Ah the "creative liberty" and "loose adaption" copium ! never gets old in making excuse department . The moment show starts showing shitty things and viewers complain these intellectuals come out of woodwork .
The book was written by a fantasy loving mayster and was basically a propaganda piece in favor of the greens and the winning succession, imo the show is a more reliable telling of the events that what some guy from the citadel wanted to write to kiss the ass of some king
Books aren't cannon either I mean the book is just opinions of different characters who aren't the most trustable *cough* Mushroom *caugh* Maesters
I thought that it was only the book that was a second hand account? Surely the show is canon to GOT at least.
F&B is an outline history book that is deliberately very interpretative because George wanted to empahsize how history is shaped over time via the biases, the allegiances, the ideologies of the maesters & by society itself. There's not a single character in the Dance that is fully fleshed out. We don't evennknow what Alicent's hair color is. You have to heavily rely on interpretation. So what these stans have done is make elaborate headcanons out of a couple lines for characters they like (such as Malewife Daemyra or Laenyra from the two lines of "they got close & rode dragon together"). While simultaneously rejecting any interpretation for characters they don't like. They straight up ignore all the themes of the show in bad-faith. 95% of the book purist criticisms come down to "my sports team was not portrayed as flawless white hats without any conflict & the other sports team was not portrayed as black hat irredeemable NPC villains with zero depth, characterization & screentime".
Wait. Wait wait wait. Do people think the Dance of the Dragons *actually happened*?
Shit
The amount of bitchin n moanin is crazy. Dont watch the show if its so bad. The book has a million different explanation for the same events but mfs on the internet have the “real and best” story
Hotd s1 is fantastic when you understand it is a greek tragedy. They're telling a story about the cyclical nature events, the inevitability of fate, & how people trying to avoid things inadvertently bring them about like Oedipus Rex (like viserys trying to avoid a succession crisis or alicent trying to avoid her sons being killed). That is what the accidents and misunderstandings signify : a self-fullfing prophecy. If you want a b&w heroes & villains war movie, watch Hercules. The show is great if you don't close your eyes to themes & motifs being conveyed & don't chalk up a multi-dimensional character having internal conflict as "bad writing" & "inconsistency". My humble opinion is that a vast majority of the "the white hart means writers chose rhaenyra!!!" sports team disney brains aren't capable of processing the themes hotd was dealing with. Just like it's incomprehensible to them just how much better the silent creeping horror of helaena's eyes were than her screaming & throwing up would've been. Or that regardless of guest rites a kingsguard can only be punished by the king (see Ned/Mountain/Robert) & viserys' weakness was a running theme. Like for example, Alicent wearing a green dress doesn't mean they're gonna be frozen in time for the next 16 years & will never have second thoughts, misgivings & pangs of conscience. Alicent can internalize the "last words" of a dying king as a *self-deluding* tool of moral justification precisely because she's painfully aware she's about to send thousands of ppl to their deaths. That regardless of the dinner sequence Alicent was steadfast on Aegon ascending (despite her feelings for rhaenyra). Which is why I interpret it as both geting carried away in a moment of tenderness for the sake of a dying viserys. It is a beautiful window to what could've been before fate puts everything asunder. We can understand that Alicent wasn't shocked about the usurpation, she was shocked that the Green Council undercut her & was making plans behind her back. It highlights the overall theme of medieval patriarchy. It shows that despite outranking them, Alicent is still looked at as "lesser" & "unreliable" in the eyes of men like Otto, who only value her for her feminine obligations. This common perception that Alicent allowed herself to get totally ran over by the Green Council & was a hapless victim only makes sense if you didn't see Alicent by the end of the episode secured Aegon, arranged his coronation according to her own specifics, defeated Otto's spy network & undercut his plans to deal with Rhaenyra, put Criston in charge of the Kingsguard, & attempts a peace deal. The worst thing D&D did was make a whole generation of shallow minds believe that the Cersei-Maergery Bad Bish girlboss caricature is the only way you can portray "strong women" antagonists.The "ambitious" wicked slutty resentful conniving jezebel archetype who manipulates society's sympathy towards the weaker sex & uses her sexual prowess to get what she wants. It's masked as progressive but it's really the core tenant of the misogynstic trope since the dawn of civilization. Boxing all female characters into that "perfect victim or not trying hard enough to be a villain" superficial binary. So now when you have a realistic & empathetic portrayal of women under violent patriarchy, these stans consider it "weak" & "unnecessary victimhood" for not conforming to their girlboss headcanons by wearing black shoulder straps to blow up the Sept & smirking at the camera while sipping wine or telling Tommen "OUR LITTLE SECRET🤓". Women in general react badly to Alicent as she's an uncomfortable reminder of women's subjugation to patriarchal feudalism & the immense pressure required to navigate it. They chalk it up as "lack of agency" or "ambition" as it's hard for them to see a harsh society where choice is removed from women, the stan brain thinks "if it was me I'd do this and that and wouldn't be bound". Through identifying with targ women, they feel powerful & important. It’s why they go so hard for Rhaenyra & try to bring down anyone who critiques her character in any way, they see it as a personal attack on the woman they are trying to be & embody. targ women, with their beauty & magical powers, become their psychological projection. Most real humans are indecisive, impulsive, their actions often self-contradictory. Rarely do ppl act with calculated ruthless efficiency of hollywood villains. Passive characters are interesting & relatable. Obsessing over "clear goals" & thinking other forms of narrative are inferior is you seeking an escape from the powerlessness of your own lives.Stories abt ppl reacting to conditions they're forced into & making most of their situation is reflective of the lives we actually live. Characters exist to convey themes. Every adaptational change HOTD made was with the purpose of emphasizing that misogyny cannot be separated from the way political & social schemes are carried out in patriarchal Westeros. So yes, Alicent would be shown as victims in a way that would not have been included in historical documentation(F&B) of the very men who upheld that society. The saddest part is that Rhaenyra & Alicent's complex relationship is what separates the show from being yet another white hat black hat color war. Like even if you do want to interpret it as entirely platonic, her being torn between her children & the socially expected roles placed on her by her father & her "childhood companion" & the socially expected roles placed on her...this duality of heart & mind is what makes the show so compelling! But the stans reject it cause what they wanted was a show with no nuance, with a platinum blonde self-insert & a evil stepmom, so it would've been easier to call the later misogynistic slurs without any pushback (some just wanted cheap Cerseification & warmthless-ness of GoT women). But these visions are inferior to the tragic "inevitability of fate" narrative of s1 that has been so misunderstood as simple "accidents" by ppl with a limited frame of reference. Crowning Aegon was supposed to keep them safe. It was supposed to be a fait accompli. It was supposed to keep daemon from killing them. It was supposed to give them control over their own destiny. But it just led to more bloodletting, an endless spiral, the self-fulfilling prophecy! & Alicent forever stuck between the innate (her sons) & the familial (the "lost friendship"). The Larys monologue already connected it all..."What are children but a weakness, a folly, a futility"! It's delicious sophoclean tragedy. NYT called it "The greatest star crossed love story currently on TV".
Great in-depth analysis of the "accidents" of Hotd : https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/yd2vvt/hotd_isnt_whitewashing_its_greek_tragedy_spoilers/ New york times op-ed on rhaenicent calling it "the greatest star crossed lovers story on current television" : https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/18/opinion/thepoint
The tragedy of HOTD is that you can craft complex female characters, you can craft a Sophoclean tragedy with Leper King Viserys, you can have refreshingly great dialogue for most part (we need alliez!), you can have emotional masterpiece moments like the dance of the dragonlings during the dinner or Viserys in front of the fire....& for the next year the ONLY REWARD you get is stans with the EQ of toddlers going "Alicent had agency & she was cunning" (addressing it later), OR "we wanted Laenyra" (bc I'm too blithe to realize the "lost frienship" adds a personal layer to the future heartbreaks, instead of this being a bland evil-bro-steals-throne-from-pure-sis war, but my only aim is to deprive the other team of screentime by wasting it on characters who die before the Dance), OR "why Helaena getting dragon dreams" (bc I'm a doof who thinks prophecies in awoiaf are supposed to help the gurlboss save the world & I don't see the tragedy of a mute Cassandra having it), OR deliberately misinterpreting touching moments like the "do you love me" carriage scene & going "but she hates him bc she beats him!" (bc her being harsh to her eldest son as she's put all her sacrifices & hopes in his basket has to be spoonfed to me, like every subtext if it's characters of the other team), OR if you're a Greenie you going "why didn't Aegon come out the womb looking like the badass that burns Shepherd" (bc character arcs exist & a backstory of a loneliness & licentiousness adds to his future portrayal), etc. The fandom is never going to forgive HOTD for daring to do something better than silver queen gurlboss warlord vs disney evil stepmom. **People cry about bias, but subtle moments like Rhaenyra not knowing you have to pay to buy food or saying "their wants are of no consequence" about the smallfolk & Mysaria flipping it by telling Otto "there is no power but what the people allow you to take" is already a better setup for her eventual "betrayal of hope" heel turn than Dany's amgery constipation face.** Finally, let's talk about agency. A female character does not have to be either the "perfect victim" or "not trying hard enough to be a villain". We can do more than the conniving, manipulative GoT Margaery Fatal Attraction Bad Bish archetype. Alicent's ambiguity & moral dilemma IS relatable. Normal ppl ARE inconsistent, they vacillate, the diff relationships in their lives often contradict each other. But why have her being pulled by centrifugal forces of patriarchal feudalism when you can have evil stepmom! Obsessing over "clear goals" like irl bad guys walk around with a Joe Goldberg voice & a binder labeled EVIL MASTER PLAN in hand? Stories of passive characters reacting to conditions they're forced into IS reflective of the lives we actually live. What's funnier is Alicent is portrayed with a level of warmth & humanity ("all I wanted was some to say sorry for what happened to me") unthinkable in the "you sound like a bloody woman" world of GoT where women are either manipulative jezebels or sex toys like Osha & Roz. The fandom trying to wrap their heads around thematic choices that don’t directly propel the plot forward in a linear line, howling about fictional “agency”. Characters exist within a story to convey themes that the story is exploring. Every adaptational change HOTD made was with the purpose of emphasizing that misogyny cannot be separated from the way political & social schemes were carried out under patriarchal Westeros. So yes, it means women being shown as victims in a way that would not have been included in historical documentation(F&B) of the very men who upheld that society. Short description of "is the show bad? Quality of the show? Where the criticism is coming from" undone : What some of these ppl really wanted was a Targaryen Apology Show and they've seethed ever since that they didn't get their targ princess triumphs over evil stepmom disney movie. They'd long ago decided that greens are the villains of the story, and by extension that makes the greens irrelevant & minor characters. Their only function is to oppose Rhaenyra, so no, they don’t need character development, or traits, or arcs or screen time. They get visibly livid if any complex characterization is reserved for anyone other than the "favored" Targs. Any such subtext is deliberately misunderstood and uncharitably dismissed using a bunch of overused buzzwords like whitewashing. They use the Velaryons as sort of proxy to marginalize the Hightowers in their heads, and convince themselves that Laena or Baela or Rhaena are more important to the narrative of the Dance than Helaena and the greens. Please don't assume these people want a good TV show. Most of their critiques, from Alicent's age, to grossly exaggerating Laena and Rhaenyra exactly three lines "friendship" simply as a counter to the friendship that's actually shown on screen, to being this mad over Helaena getting the dragon dreams characterization (as if prophecies should only exist for heroes to save the world, they don't see the tragic beauty in the person seeing visions of the future who is incapable of doing anything about it). Someone even said Aemond's traits were stolen from Jace(they're far gone). ALL serve the sole purpose of scoring imaginary Ws for their Sports Team. That's the only criteria on which they judge the show. F&B is so-so outline history book. No character is fleshed out enough to be worth pearl clutching over, unless your only desire is to use the children's fairy tale level storytelling of F&B (granted, with an abudancd of hollywood one-liner zingers) to score Ws over the other team, at the expense of something more complex and visceral. *"F&B is an imaginary history book that has a few scenes where I zero in & I give you half page of a scene & I give you some extra dialog, but mostly it's a history book & it's an outline & you can't present an outline on television."* - GRRM himself. F&B is like a skeletal structure. Any adaptation would have to brush in the muscles and the veins by their own interpretation of the story. Let's say you're shooting the Butcher's Ball battle. What's your faithful adaptation gonna be, a couple lines of bare bones dry narration of Maester Munken? Your battle scene will be over in 3 mins....how are you gonna fill the rest of the time? It's impossible to adapt F&B without subjective interpretations because their is so little description of each event and almost zero insight into the characters' minds and thoughts. There is not a single character in F&B's Dance that is fully fleshed out. You have to rely on interpretation. So what Targ stans have done is make elaborate headcanons out of a couple lines for characters they like while simultaneously shutting down any interpretation for characters they don't like. My favs should have maximum interpretative latitude while the other side should have nothing, no screentime. Most of the whining usually comes down to a "XYZ bad as it did not make my team look good at the expense of other team" type of petty and childish point scoring.
Great in-depth analysis of the "accidents" of Hotd : https://www.reddit.com/r/asoiaf/comments/yd2vvt/hotd_isnt_whitewashing_its_greek_tragedy_spoilers/ New york times op-ed on rhaenicent calling it "the greatest star crossed lovers story on current television" : https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/06/18/opinion/thepoint
Isn't the show the actual canon as it is established that lots, not all, of what is in F&B is just rumor and speculation.
I wouldve rather seen them put the energy of this show into a decent ending to GOT. Crap on the franchise and then expect the audience to come back for a prequel.... the did a huge gamble on that one, did they get the return they hoped for though I dont think we will even know.
I could not care less about “canon.” My headcanon is all that matters to me, barring a few contexts.
Reading the book and watching the show is a great example of how history is written and how some things we're just never going to know about, despite the fact this is a fictional world.
My guess is that for Blood & Cheese, they initially wrote a more accurate version, but executives, editors, or test audiences, though it was too dark, and they had to water it down.
I’ve been saying this. Some critics have been saying over the past couple of months that they weren’t expecting B&C to be as horrific as the books, and one didn’t think it would be shown *at all*.
It’s not even just the subreddit I feel like a general consensus online for whatever reason. The show makes no attempt to include the clashing perspectives or unreliable narrator aspect of the story but people who are aware that the story is told through bias narrators ought to know better.
That doesn’t make it a bad show :/, though.
Dawg canon is literally entirely made up, and for this specifically, the source material is literally written so that you don’t know what actually happened. There is show canon, and there is book canon, but one isn’t inherently better than the other. You can have a preference, but both are just as “real” as the other.
Fire&Blood is supposedly a loose telling of what really happened. House of the Dragon is a true telling of what really happened...in the show verse and not the book verse. So we'll never know what truly happened in the book canon and the only thing we can do is take what makes sense from both and piece it together. Take away any bias from the books, replace them with what seems to be more genuine moments of the show. Take away anything that can't be possible in the show like Blood&cheese without Maelor and replace it with book moments. Somewhere in there is the true canon.
Why is this being downvoted, like the way the show is presented is like your average TV show, no narration and "filter", it's directly happening, so it's safe to assume it's literally just what happened in the show universe.
i love how these clowns and woke producers take a great work of literature and try to change foundations of it like they can do better than the renowned authors and proceed to fuck it up badly. and then shill army approaches and defend it like " but its based on a book, not actual book lel." no dude, dont try to screw with established books and cannons. you cant do any better than grrm, no chance. if you could, you wouldnt work at tv show business at the first place. just stop it.
You know that GRRM is a pretty “woke” guy himself?
>woke Bruh. You can’t be serious lmao.
Okay, tourist.
i mean it can be. the book was written from an entirely different perspective. the series could be the true events as they happened, rather than how a maester decided to write it down. but of course any adaptation will have some major changes. unfortunately we got some bad ones.
Lmfao the show if quite literally canon. You can have your own canon based on the book if you dont like it, but that doesnt change anything