House of the Dragon (Season 1 of GoT-related series discussion)

[MagisterCultuum]

Can't say I am a fan of the "years pass between each episode" format either. From the trailer of ep 8 it appears that all (?) the child actors are gone again, replaced with others

I believe it has been stated that there is only one significant time jump left in the series. We should get the final actors next episode. So far we have only been presented a prologue. The story will progress at a pace more like GoT once

Spoiler book and episode title spoilers :

Viserys dies either near the end of episode 8 or fairly early in episode 9, as the eponymous Green Council from that episode 9 title is the group that conspires to keep the king's death a secret from Rhaenrya until after Aegon II has been crowned and recieved oaths if fealty from many great lords. The Black Queen will be about how Rhaenya reacts to the news. We may get a rematch of the fight from today's episode, where Aemond kills the nephew who took his eye. Season 2 will be total war.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Good episode but much too dark. I mostly mean that it looked like D&D were in charge of lighting the nighttime scenes so I could barely see what was going on much of the time with my laptop screen, but metaphorically it could have used more levity from a bit of comic relief too. This show really needs more Mushroom, the dwarf jester from the book.

I would tend to agree... this show is sorely missing a character like Tyrion, but not just Peter Dinklage, its also missing a character like Baelish, or Varys or The Hound or even Olena Tyrell. Their dry wittiness was gold in GoT and they haven't really replaced that in this show. Everything is so dark and serious with almost zero levity or even dry-humor. I guess Larys Strong (the lame guy) is supposed to be a replacement for all of them but that too heavy of a lift for one character and he isn't cutting it. The actor does a good job, but he can't fill the shoes of Tyrion, Baelish, or Varys.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I really dislike the "it's fantasy, therefore anything goes" argument. The point of a fantasy setting is to initially tell us how it differs from our world. Do it. Done.

Then the audience either accepts that conceit or doesn't. This guy came from a world with a Red Sun & our Yellow Sun gives him powers. There's a world of magic existing under our muggle noses & it has its own separate rules, but otherwise it's the same. A long time ago in a universe far, far away, some people can use the Force, but gravity works like our world. Etc. The ways this universe is different from ours is explained early on. And we either accept that or.. don't, & can check out or not.

But, once that's done, & the exceptions are explicitly laid out, the understanding is: the rest is like our world. Tides behave like we know it. Plants grow due to photosynthesis. Genetics behave like ours do.

To later go "well, it's fiction, so *anything* can happen" is a cop out. If Harry Potter had suddenly transformed into a Dragon & breathed fire onto Voldemort in the last Book that would've ruined Harry Potter. If Katniss Everdeen suddenly showed the ability to fly or teleport in Book 2 or 3, that'd be dumb. If Sarah Connor had shot laser beams out of her eyes in Terminator, it would not be the movie it is. "It's just fiction, so whatever" does not work. It kills the story.

You lay out how your fictional story is different, then you stick to "our world". All that said, I think HotD (based on GoT world-building) has done that well.

Its funny, because I dislike the fairly standard rebuttal argument that you are making, which is essentially recharacterizing the "Its make-believe, be more flexible" argument as "Oh so then ANYTHING goes?!"

Its not a big deal, we all have this same debate all the time with LoTR, Star Wars, Marvel, DC, everything... One person will point out some absurdity, conflict with canon, incongruity with source material, continuity error, violation of physics, common understandings of genetics, etc., and the response will typically be... "So you're fine with lightsabers but you draw the line at sounds in space?"... or something along those lines... and the response to that is always "So you're saying ANYTHING goes?!!" Its the same argument every time.

They're not saying "ANYTHING goes"... they're (we're) saying... "its make believe, lighten up/ be a little more flexible with your suspension of disbelief." But I get it... we all have very different thresholds for that. Some of us have a more flexible ability to suspend disbelief when it comes to certain things. One of the things that irritates me, for obvious reasons, is when people's suspension of disbelief seems to always hit a wall around the race of the actors... because it just comes off as racism to me, even though its often subconscious. In fact, when its subconscious, its more troublesome, because the person complaining doesn't realize they're being racially prejudiced, they think they're being reasonable. But they're not, because its make believe, it doesn't matter.

Again, this is the same old argument... but I'm a geek/nerd, so I'm always willing to have it. So please don't hesitate to disagree and/or offer your counterpoints. I'm totally here for it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Show isn't very good with biology anyway; if your father has black hair, but your mother has blond (I'd say silver, but that doesn't exist in reality for young people), it's not as if all of your children are likely to have black hair
I like the black actors, they are among the best in the show - and the son Velaryon is also sympathetic due to role (he is actually the only person in the show I support...). But it does seem a bit weird to have the Targaryens and Velaryons go on about how they are of the same blood, yet clearly look nothing alike (apart from white wigs) ^_^

 

[RobAnybody]

Its funny, because I dislike the fairly standard rebuttal argument that you are making, which is essentially recharacterizing the "Its make-believe, be more flexible" argument as "Oh so then ANYTHING goes?!"

I'd agree with you completely *if* the original rebuttal to any complaint about lore, continuity, physics, biology actually was simply "meh, it's fiction & it doesn't bother me." In other words, a simple expression of perspective & how different people have different "breaking points" when it comes to suspension of disbelief.

Instead, it's much more often the example you gave: "it's got lightsabers/dragons/magic wands so your particular complaint is invalid & you should be fine with whatever." It's not even acknowledging or addressing the actual point being raised, or allowing that different people have different breaking points when it comes to fiction. Instead it's a blanket dismissal of the point being raised as well as telling the other person how they *ought* to feel. That's why it generally triggers an equally dismissive & hyperbolic retort. All IMO of course.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Show isn't very good with biology anyway; if your father has black hair, but your mother has blond (I'd say silver, but that doesn't exist in reality for young people), it's not as if all of your children are likely to have black hair
I like the black actors, they are among the best in the show - and the son Velaryon is also sympathetic due to role (he is actually the only person in the show I support...). But it does seem a bit weird to have the Targaryens and Velaryons go on about how they are of the same blood, yet clearly look nothing alike (apart from white wigs) ^_^

Based on simple Mendelian genetics, a black-haired father with dominant homozygous genes could only ever produce black haired children and two blond parents could never produce a dark-haired child.

Of course, human genetics are a bit more complicated than the version taught in middle school. Scientists have discovered 124 different genes that play a major role in determining human hair color variation.

It is possible for one parent to carry genes for dark hair but be blond due to a mutation in a different gene that turns off the switch and prevents the other dark hair genes from being read, and another parent to have a functional version of that switch but have genes for blond hair. Their offspring could inherit the dark hair genes from one parent and the genes that tell the cells to read those other genes from the other.


They should have kept Rhaenys' hair black as it was in the book, even if it turned completely silver with age by the time her grandchildren were born instead of still being salt-and-pepper, to give Viserys a more plausible fig leaf argument for his insistence that they are legitimate sons of Laenor. Having her hair go from mostly black during the council of Harrenhall to completely silver by the end of the season would have been a good way to show that she is aging.


I really wish they established that Coryls' mother was a Summer Islander, preferable a Princess of the Isle of Koj as that house is renowned for the best
explorers and seafarers in the history of the world. That parentage could have given him access to the world's best navigation charts, to a shipbuilding industry unrivalled except perhaps by Braavos, and might let him establish a monopoly on the export of the previous goldenwood tree lumber that they refuse to sell to anyone not of their own blood.

It would mean Coryls and his children do not have "Pure Valyrian Blood," but Laena would still be closer to pure Valyrian than was Viserys' first wife Aemma Arryn. (Aemma's mother was a sister of both Viserys' parents, but her father was of Andal blood without any trace of Valyrian ancestry.) Valyrians have no reason to think that Summer Islander blood is any less desirable than First Men or Andal blood.

Then they could have left all the book genealogy intact, with lots of intermarriages between the Targaryens and Valyrians going back centuries. The book never says who Coryls' mother or grandmother are, just that his grandfather Daemon Velaryon was the brother of Alyssa Velaryon, who was the mother of The Old King Jaehaerys and also of Jocelyn Baratheon (Rhaenys's mother). Technically none of the Targaryens could have been been pure Valyrian since King Aenys, since Alyrra Velaryon's own mother was from House Massey, a First Men house that had probably intermarried with Andals. Queen Alyssane had blue eyes and honey-blond hair instead of purple eyes and platinum blond hair because of her gradnmother's Massey genes.

I was originally thinking they should have kept Vaemond Velaryon as Coryls' nephew and made him white instead of black, but I'm liking that actor more than I expected so I'm ok with him being black and being Coryls's brother. It may cause a minor conflict as Vaemond's granddaughter Daenaera is described as having skin as white as snow, but maybe the Maester was lying or just imagining her beauty based on his own beauty standards. Daenaera will become the queen consort eventually, but she is not an ancestor of the Targaryens from GoT as her sons die without heirs. She is however an ancestor of House Blackfyre. If they keep the show going well past the Dance of the Dragons and into the Blackfyre Rebellions, it might actually work well on screen to give the Blackfyres the mixed race Velaryon look.

 

[AdrienIer]

Everything about genetics and hair color doesn't work in Westeros exactly like in our world. Baratheons only producing black haired children when marrying Lannisters shouldn't work, at some point a Baratheon should be getting black/blond pairing and half their children should be blond when mixing them with Lannisters.
What we know is that Baratheon black hair >>> Targaryen silver hair and Lannister blond whatever happens.

 

[Kyriakos]

Everything about genetics and hair color doesn't work in Westeros exactly like in our world. Baratheons only producing black haired children when marrying Lannisters shouldn't work, at some point a Baratheon should be getting black/blond pairing and half their children should be blond when mixing them with Lannisters.
What we know is that Baratheon black hair >>> Targaryen silver hair and Lannister blond whatever happens.

Apparently the higher your family is in the line, the more dominant your hair color

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd agree with you completely *if* the original rebuttal to any complaint about lore, continuity, physics, biology actually was simply "meh, it's fiction & it doesn't bother me." In other words, a simple expression of perspective & how different people have different "breaking points" when it comes to suspension of disbelief.

Instead, it's much more often the example you gave: "it's got lightsabers/dragons/magic wands so your particular complaint is invalid & you should be fine with whatever." It's not even acknowledging or addressing the actual point being raised, or allowing that different people have different breaking points when it comes to fiction. Instead it's a blanket dismissal of the point being raised as well as telling the other person how they *ought* to feel. That's why it generally triggers an equally dismissive & hyperbolic retort. All IMO of course.

I guess my perspective on this is that it seems to usually, or more often be the other way around. The first complaint is sometimes technically correct/sound, but is also trivial, or petty nitpicking, in the eyes of the second person, and more importantly, seems at best, arbitrary, compared to other aspects of the story that are equally, or oftentimes, far more absurd, fanciful, incredible, etc., and the complaining person hasn't offered a reason why this particular concern is somehow more important ie why this particular issue is the breaking point. The most the complainer typically comes up with, is the bog-standard response of "You introduce/set the fantasy rules in advance/at the beginning of the story for the audience then everything else MUST adhere to real world parameters", which has always been unpersuasive to me, since that's not how it ever works at all, in most fantasy/sci-fi/superhero stories. They change the rules/powers all the time. For eg., they don't show anyone using the force to move objects with their mind until ESB (Obi Wan didn't use it to turn the levers to shut the Death Star Shield down for eg.), so that power wasn't introduced at the beginning... force powers were always a moving target. So the "introduce the rules at the beginning" argument is just a rhetorical convention/rule, that complainers made up and typically fall back on in these types of debates. It does not at all explain why the race of a stormtrooper is more important than the physics of spaceflight to them.

So then, the person complaining who is across the breaking point while the other person is not, feels like their concern is being flippantly dismissed, and reacts with hyperbole "Oh so ANYTHING goes?!" But the problem isn't necessarily just that the person dismissing their concern hasn't given a reason, its usually also the case that the complainer hasn't properly justified their own reason for their gripe, vis-a-vis anything else "unrealistic" in the story, so the person rejecting their concern really does not have much choice but to sound dismissive. A complaint I heard often about the the Star Wars ST from white guys was that the main white guy characters were all bad guys, while the main non-white-guy characters were the heroes, and this bothered them, because they 1)felt vilified as white guys, and 2) felt like they had no hero to identify with. So they dislike the whole ST for that reason. Now THAT is a reason to dislike the stormtrooper being black. Obviously I would debate against that view, but it is an actual reason. Hobbits shouldn't be black because "genetics" is getting a hand waive from me, because "real world" genetics are already being wildly violated by the existence of hobbits, elves and orcs in the first place. So I need a better explanation why you (the royal you) don't like black hobbits. The dragons in GoT/HotD don't look anything like each other despite being relatives and nobody raises a peep about that violating any "genetics" rules.

 

[Kyriakos]

I am sure there is some 1000 post thread somewhere about the problems with dragons looking that different from each other, but then again there is less information about how related dragons look than related humans

It's not show-breaking for me, btw, the Velaryon son is my favorite character in the show (due to personality traits of his). But it is a bit on the corny side, since a main recurrent theme is how Targaryen and Velaryon are interbred and closely related.
I like the Velaryon uncle too.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Show isn't very good with biology anyway; if your father has black hair, but your mother has blond (I'd say silver, but that doesn't exist in reality for young people), it's not as if all of your children are likely to have black hair
I like the black actors, they are among the best in the show - and the son Velaryon is also sympathetic due to role (he is actually the only person in the show I support...). But it does seem a bit weird to have the Targaryens and Velaryons go on about how they are of the same blood, yet clearly look nothing alike (apart from white wigs) ^_^

Yeah, Laenor gives off a milk boy weirdo impression in the book. In the show, he's a good bro. Even though he faked his marriage, he is very much a team player.

 

[Gorbles]

Show isn't very good with biology anyway; if your father has black hair, but your mother has blond (I'd say silver, but that doesn't exist in reality for young people), it's not as if all of your children are likely to have black hair

Eh. I've had three children and they've all had their mother's colour (which is a very specific gradient between blonde and ginger, and not a particularly predictable one at that).

Genetics is weird. People are predisposed to using it to predict things when all we can really do is rule out things based on trends. And even then . . . not really?

Instead, it's much more often the example you gave: "it's got lightsabers/dragons/magic wands so your particular complaint is invalid & you should be fine with whatever."

If only anyone you were referencing actually ever told you this, this wouldn't be a strawman~

 

[Zardnaar]

I would tend to agree... this show is sorely missing a character like Tyrion, but not just Peter Dinklage, its also missing a character like Baelish, or Varys or The Hound or even Olena Tyrell. Their dry wittiness was gold in GoT and they haven't really replaced that in this show. Everything is so dark and serious with almost zero levity or even dry-humor. I guess Larys Strong (the lame guy) is supposed to be a replacement for all of them but that too heavy of a lift for one character and he isn't cutting it. The actor does a good job, but he can't fill the shoes of Tyrion, Baelish, or Varys.

I'm watching GoT now only Tyrion stands out atm although Varys and Baelish get great later.

Season 1 anyway. Dinklidge stole the show season 1.

 

[RobAnybody]

The most the complainer typically comes up with, is the bog-standard response of "You introduce/set the fantasy rules in advance/at the beginning of the story for the audience then everything else MUST adhere to real world parameters", which has always been unpersuasive to me, since that's not how it ever works at all, in most fantasy/sci-fi/superhero stories. They change the rules/powers all the time. For eg., they don't show anyone using the force to move objects with their mind until ESB (Obi Wan didn't use it to turn the levers to shut the Death Star Shield down for eg.), so that power wasn't introduced at the beginning... force powers were always a moving target.

But the fact that people have Force powers is not. That's the rule breaking we've been given for that universe. New Force powers don't violate that. Han Solo shooting lasers out of his eyes with no explanation would. That they don't list out the entire encyclopedia of known spells in Sorcerer's Stone doesn't make introducing the Patronus Charm in Prisoner of Azkaban the same as having Dudley Dursley suddenly transform into a robot or survive a 50' fall.

The storyteller can certainly introduce new "rules violations" later as well & it simply means a new opportunity for the reader to re-evaluate their suspension of disbelief. For example, we don't meet Melisandre until season 2 of GoT. Viewers could certainly go "what? magic spells now? I'm out." But if they accept the in-story explanation for her powers, it's no big deal. However, if Robb Stark just randomly pulled out a grenade in one of his battles, with no explanation whatsoever, that's a different thing entirely.

The rest of your post I don't necessarily disagree with, but it's addressing some fairly specific claims you've heard from other people.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm watching GoT now only Tyrion stands out atm although Varys and Baelish get great later.

Season 1 anyway. Dinklidge stole the show season 1.

He steals the show every season. He is just superb, hands down.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Han Solo shooting lasers out of his eyes

didn't happen

Dudley Dursley suddenly transform into a robot or survive a 50' fall.

also didn't happen

Robb Stark just randomly pulled out a grenade in one of his battles, with no explanation whatsoever

again... did not happen. I'm not saying that you're strawmanning, I'm just pointing out that these hypotheticals don't seem to support the point you seem to be trying to make, because they didn't actually happen. I think I understand your point, but I don't think its supported by the actual goings-on in the relevant movies/shows.

 

[lymond]

Good episode. One can just feel how things are boiling under the surface. Don't know if everyone is aware, but there's an aftershow after the credits where the creators and actors discuss some of the scenes. The actor who plays the, now one-eyed and dragon-rider, Targeryen prince cracked me up with the discussion of the kid fight. Also, he discussed a bit how the character evolved quickly now that he has his dragon. I get the impression he will be an important character later. I ponder whether his older brother Aegon will evolve in a different way, since he's seemed to be more of a villain up to the point.

 

[RobAnybody]

didn't happen

also didn't happen

again... did not happen.

That's... exactly my point? *IF* those things happened they'd be breaking the established rules. Somebody using a new Force power or a new spell is not.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That's... exactly my point? *IF* those things happened they'd be breaking the established rules. Somebody using a new Force power or a new spell is not.

Huh? Why? I don't agree with the distinction you are trying to make and I don't think you've given any basis for it.

And what "established rules"? There are no "established rules", that whole concept just seems made up to justify a gripe that the complaining person does not want to fully/truly articulate, even to themselves... thus we get non-existent hypotheticals and hyperbole. We make assumptions based on real world things, but then those assumptions get overturned and we either accept it or we don't, for various reasons. Its all the same concept, whether its black dwarves or new force powers.

So for eg., arguing that Hobbits/Elves/Valeryans can't be black because "established rules" is an argument with no basis and I reject it out of hand. "I don't want hobbits to be black because I envisioned Middle Earth to be all white people and I resent them introducing diversity for its own sake because it offends my politics" is an actual reason that I would debate. "Established rules" just comes off as an empty excuse to me in that context.

 

[RobAnybody]

You seem to be having two conversations: one with me & one with hypothetical "others" who are saying something I am not.

I don't see how I could make my point any clearer, but I'll try to sum it up:
1) To make a fantasy world "believable" & overcome suspension of disbelief, the author should explain (preferably early on) how this universe is different from ours & a basic understanding of "the rules" for those differences. The Force, Magic Wands & Spells, Dragons, etc.
2) Everything else is assumed to behave like "our world". If Lois Lane survives falling off a building unscathed with no explanation, then what difference does it make if Superman catches her or not?
3) However, in a world where X has been introduced, showing "new uses of X" is fine. For example, we don't need a wiki in Book 1 of all possible spells Harry Potter could possibly ever use; introducing new spells (e.g. Patronus) later is not the same as breaking rule #2.

Naturally anyone is free to disagree with me on this. But to say I haven't, or refuse to, explain it is disingenuous at this point.