Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. Definitely one of the best episodes thus far.
That said, as a story, this show still has a fundamental problem: There isn't a protagonist in sight. Everyone is a monster. There isn't a single contender for the throne that any sane person would want on the throne.
Of all of our major and minor characters driving the story, if any one of them were killed, my first thought would probably be: Well ... they did kinda deserve it.
Does "protagonist" mean the same thing as a "good guy" to you? Or are you saying that there's no protagonist in sight AND there are no good guys?
Qualify for ruler
Rhaenys—decent and should have ruled in place of Viserys
Rhaenyra—she allowed her husband to escape vs actually killing him, resisted her uncle’s allure
I dont fault her for the relationship w Harwin…she and Laenor tried but failed to have children
She didnt hide relationship from him but she is cunning and willful and wants her way
And maybe Aemon…so far his enmity for the Strong boys seems proportionate….
The King made Rhaenyra his heir because he had no sons. It was a VERY controversial decision, and not accepted by all the Lords. That's why he made them swear fealty to her (back in eps 1 or 2). They thought it should go to a male, like Daemon.
Then he remarried, and had some boys. The ones who initially didn't accept a female, are now insistent that those boys should be the heir. But the King says, nope I'm sticking with my decision.
And now that she's had kids (and clearly bastards), that only reinforces the anti-female contingent. First a female, then a bastard? Nope they scream, we want the Viserys/Alicent boys to be heirs.
So whether we think this is much ado about nothing, many of the Lords of Westeros are very upset about all of this. It is going to lead to Civil War, the "Dance of the Dragons".
Melisandre lives in Asshai, in the far east. She's not part of this world yet.
OK thanks for the Melisandre info
And I understand the old-boy response to the Strong boys as heirs but they likely could have felt same way if they were Laenor’s get
They dont want a woman as king FIRST before her sons inherit
The fault like so much else lies w Viserys who never should have re-married and produced heirs to challenge Rhaenyra’s claim to the throne
Take a mistress any day, father true bastards if she wont drink the special tea—but dont provide other legal heirs…
Does "protagonist" mean the same thing as a "good guy" to you? Or are you saying that there's no protagonist in sight AND there are no good guys?
I am saying there is no one I want to win.
Conflict is the heart of any good drama, and to engage an audience, there has to be someone we want to win. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a "good" guy (or gal). Saul Goodman was hardly a good guy. Nor Walter White. Nor Tony Soprano. Nor Michael Corleone. Nor Ben Willard. Nor "the Bride" from KILL BILL. But all of those characters at least engaged my empathy, if not my sympathy.
No one has in HOUSE OF THE DRAGON. I don't want any of the children to die horrible deaths, because I'm not a monster, but I sure wouldn't want them or any of the other characters to win in this conflict.
I always find it odd when people who don't like a show keep watching it.
I like the show. I just don't love the show. And I wanted to love it. I did genuinely love the first few seasons of GAME OF THRONES before it went entirely off the rails. And even after it went off the rails, it was still a magnificent spectacle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 601halfdozen0theother
Protagonist simply means leading character, likable or unlikable. The protagonist is Rhaenyra.
True enough. And I want our protagonist to lose. I am not rooting for her in any way. The problem is I am not rooting for the antagonists either. They're all horrible.
No, she thought he was talking about her son Aegon. Based on the dinner, you are led to believe she may be putting aside her issues and allowing Rhaenyra to take the throne with Viserys passes. But when he says what he does on his death bed, she believes he is telling her that she is the one to unite the kingdom with Aegon II.
I don't buy that. I think it is equally, if not more, believable that she was choosing to believe what was advantageous to her and her children.
Wonderful article with Paddy Considine in NY Times
Even if you don’t subscribe you get three free articles a month I think
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
