and if Luke as a envoy who came to deliver a peaceful message to Borros was not under guest right then what was Borros's reason for not wanting blood shed in his halls unless it would break a rule. Some comes to your house under a flag of truce then they are a guest and should be treated as one.
This isn't how guests' right works. For one to receive it he needs to eat food (normally bread and salt) and the lord of the castle needs to recognize it. Luke himself never invoked it either
Not that murdering Luke was okay or socially acceptable. Killing envoys (and kin) are also taboos after all.
This isn't what I meant. Luke isn't a mere child to Aemond; he ripped his eye off.
This isn't how guests' right works. For one to receive it he needs to eat food (normally bread and salt) and the lord of the castle needs to recognize it. Luke himself never invoked it either
Not that murdering Luke was okay or socially acceptable. Killing envoys (and kin) are also taboos after all.
14 is not a adult no matter what Aemond's fucked upself thinks. Also in the show Luke cut him in the face to protect his brother who Aemond was trying beat to death with a rock. This is the issue I have the show is taking a character who is supposed to be one of the worst of the Targaryens and trying to get you to sympathize with him. Reading comments across the internet I have seen a bunch of people trying to get him of the hook for the death of his cousin and they are ready to excuse is future crimes by using the Blood and Cheese incident which is already grinding my gears. Giving a villain a thing they can use as a excuse for their actions is not good writing. You want a member of the Green side to sympathize with you have Healena you don't have to whitewash Vahgar's rider.
There is no real issue with the show making the Greens sympathetic (or the Blacks for that matter) when both sides were so bleak you stopped caring during the war part. It also sells itself way better as a narrative if it's a tragedy where sympathetic people fall prey to their flaws.
At the very least, the Greens are campy which makes them memorable. The Strong Boys, bless their hearts, have no real distinguishing features besides bouts of anger and being kinda nice I guess.
There is no real issue with the show making the Greens sympathetic (or the Blacks for that matter) when both sides were so bleak you stopped caring during the war part. It also sells itself way better as a narrative if it's a tragedy where sympathetic people fall prey to their flaws.
At the very least, the Greens are campy which makes them memorable. The Strong Boys, bless their hearts, have no real distinguishing features besides bouts of anger and being kinda nice I guess.
I mean, they aren't really sympathetic. I'm not going to go "oops the vicious bastard who wanted his cousin to cut his eye out cause he got his own cut out by that same cousin in self defense only accidentally killed said cousin in a chase he instigated"
The whitewashing doesn't make them look sympathetic, it makes them look incompetent and without agency.
This isn't what I meant. Luke isn't a mere child to Aemond; he ripped his eye off.
This isn't how guests' right works. For one to receive it he needs to eat food (normally bread and salt) and the lord of the castle needs to recognize it. Luke himself never invoked it either
Not that murdering Luke was okay or socially acceptable. Killing envoys (and kin) are also taboos after all.
I mean, they aren't really sympathetic. I'm not going to go "oops the vicious bastard who wanted his cousin to cut his eye out cause he got his own cut out by that same cousin in self defense only accidentally killed said cousin in a chase he instigated"
The whitewashing doesn't make them look sympathetic, it makes them look incompetent and without agency.
I was talking about the Greens in general instead of just the Storm's End incident. I have already said my opinion on it, and how while many praise it as being about dragons being less tamed than Targs think, my own thought is that, if that's the idea, it's diluted by being part of the same pattern of the show having the characters kinda stumble accidentally into war by accident because it doesn't want them to look bad.
Incidentally, "got his eye cut out by the cousin in self defense" is doing a whole lot of heavy lifting over the fact that this is because the dude was bullied 4 on 1, and defending himself with rocks against knives as they attacked first.
I was talking about the Greens in general instead of just the Storm's End incident. I have already said my opinion on it, and how while many praise it as being about dragons being less tamed than Targs think, my own thought is that, if that's the idea, it's diluted by being part of the same pattern of the show having the characters kinda stumble accidentally into war by accident because it doesn't want them to look bad.
Incidentally, "got his eye cut out by the cousin in self defense" is doing a whole lot of heavy lifting over the fact that this is because the dude was bullied 4 on 1, and defending himself with rocks against knives as they attacked first.
I dont remember if its this way in the show but beating up a three year old to keep him quite and then getting jumped by his family because of it sure is a wierd form of "bullying"
in the show it's more like the eldest kid knocking down the 4 smaller kids one after the other after they attack him for insulting them, and eventually there is a brief moment where the 4 have the upper hand but he again knocks them all down and then threatens to murder them with a rock. only after which a knife is drawn.
so, uh, still a weird characterisation from all fictions, not to mention literally the reverse of the sequence of events as to rocks/knives.
i really don't understand why people are so keen to reframe that moment in that way, be it as aemond being "bullied" or the strongs just defending themselves. the whole point is it's each side escalating the other in cycles, it's a whole mini dance preview. being partisan about it that way is just a bizarrely wilful misreading.
edit: like, sure, you can say you think it'd have been better or more interesting or just more up your alley if written differently, but there's just no point pretending it's not written the way it is. fëanor did plenty wrong.
So its been bubbling in the aether of the fandom for a while (tbf the fandom has gotten kinda insane and has started shipping everyone with everyone else) but I would really like the theory that Cregan and Jace hooked up and that the whole story/speculation by mushroom about Jace falling for Sara Snow, a supposed bastard half sister of Cregan we never see as being a pretty obvious in universe explanation for a gay romance and then a falling out. For one it would be funny and cute to have a gay love story involving the ancestor to our straight manly man heroes of the original series Ned, Jon and Robb but it would also fit with the themes of the show thus far where its clear the official account is biased against minority groups something that is definitely true in a lot of real world histories.
So its been bubbling in the aether of the fandom for a while (tbf the fandom has gotten kinda insane and has started shipping everyone with everyone else) but I would really like the theory that Cregan and Jace hooked up and that the whole story/speculation by mushroom about Jace falling for Sara Snow, a supposed bastard half sister of Cregan we never see as being a pretty obvious in universe explanation for a gay romance and then a falling out. For one it would be funny and cute to have a gay love story involving the ancestor to our straight manly man heroes of the original series Ned, Jon and Robb but it would also fit with the themes of the show thus far where its clear the official account is biased against minority groups something that is definitely true in a lot of real world histories.
Considering that Cregan was already married to a woman he liked and had a kid before Jace even arrived that would only make Cregan Bi at most and seems to be a stretch to go with to me and if they had a falling out then why would Cregan agree to the pact of Ice and Fire and March South in support of the Blacks instead of staying out of the whole mess.
Yeah if they go this route I doubt they'll have a falling out since a lot of Cregan's later actions are cause of his agreement with Jace and his friendship with him.
I mean yeah sorta? I don't think them making the Veleryons Black was an accident, Corlys's speech about history remembering names and Veamond's rant about Rhenera's kids being bastards and not having any Veleryon blood in them does certainly have a lot of racial subtext to it. There's also Alicent's conversation with Rheneys about the role of women and how
"We do not rule, but we may guide the men that do."
Which seems to me a pretty unsubtle nod to the camera about how history, especially classical history obesses over great men and titles and ignores the women in their lives influencing them.
Fire and Blood already has strong themes of how history is written by the victor and how stories are unreliable, ping ponging between the cold bias of the Measters and Mushroom's salacious rumor mongering. The show is just picking up and continuing the theme.
I mean yeah sorta? I don't think them making the Veleryons Black was an accident, Corlys's speech about history remembering names and Veamond's rant about Rhenera's kids being bastards and not having any Veleryon blood in them does certainly have a lot of racial subtext to it.
Making the Velaryons blacks ended up not mattering a whole lot I feel, and even felt insulting. The powerful black family with a strong claim to the throne keeps getting sidelined and dunked on by the incestuous family, first by Laenor being passed over as heir to the Iron Throne, then their children dying with the son being killed (or just leaving his responsibilities/narrative relevance behind) so the incestuous white people can get together, and eventually none of their grandchildren or descendants ending up on the Iron Throne.
It feels less like being about history being biased against minorities, and more minorities bending over backwards to accomodate the majority for little to no rewards. And I very much doubt that's what the show wanted to communicate.
Which seems to me a pretty unsubtle nod to the camera about how history, especially classical history obesses over great men and titles and ignores the women in their lives influencing them.
Fire and Blood already has strong themes of how history is written by the victor and how stories are unreliable, ping ponging between the cold bias of the Measters and Mushroom's salacious rumor mongering. The show is just picking up and continuing the theme.
To start with, the show isn't like the book, we aren't seeing the events through multiple accounts, we are seeing one definitive version of them, because they are treated as such by the camera and the way the story is told, it is not the recollections of maesters years later or told Rashomon-style.
But even in F&B it's a technique that was inconsistently applied, because GRRM is too stuck in the gimmick he has given his narrators over what would make sense for them to say based on their allegiances, not just because they like talking about sex.
(GRRM make the multiple historical accounts all work the exact same boring way. They're all contemporary to the events described, there's usually three of them, one will be sleazy and get a lot of attention, another will be prudish and exist mostly so it can lamely object at the sleazy account, and one will have no particular gimmick.)
Like, a good example of this is Septon Eustace and Mushroom. The former is pro-Green and the latter is pro-Black and liked Rhaenyra. But because GRRM got too enamored to Mushroom being a constantly horny dwarf, he makes his accounts illogical. Eustace is the pro-Green stan, yet, because he is the "prudish" one, he is the one who denies the rumours of the Strong Boys being bastards. Even though that was one of the Greens' arguments and it benefits them! And Mushroom says it even though it's the thing that makes Rhaenyra look bad! And then Mushroom later says Rhaenyra had Alicent and Helaena gang raped in brothels even though it, again, makes Rhaenyra look extremely bad, but he is the salacious one, so he gotta be salacious against all logic or character motivation.
And it continues to the conclusion of the Dance and its aftermath. Spoiled for the show-only watchers:
By all account, the Blacks won, they were history's victors. Aegon II was king, but he had to acknowledge Aegon III as his heir. A lot of Greens got purged during the Hour of the Wolf, and later the last Green Targ, Jaehaera, would die/be killed. If that is so, then why is Rhaenyra still slandered and remembered as an usurper? You might say "oh because she's a woman", but her being a woman doesn't change the fact that she is the mother of two kings and pretty much the ancestor of the Targ line up till Aerys. At the very least, you would think Aegon III or Viserys II would suppress salacious accounts of their mother, punish dissident historians, or at least commission flattering accounts. But none of that happens: Aegon is traumatized by her death enough to hate dragons, but not enough to defend her memory apparently.
So when I hear that it's its theme, I can only think that it did that theme pretty poorly.
As has been noted by many people, GRRM is actually kinda not very good at history, and comparisons of him to Tolkien are a huge insult to Tolkien on this score.
GRRM is all about taking aesthetic inspiration from a variety of sources and weaving it together in a compelling text. Despite his many claims otherwise, he neither cares about, nor has the knowledge and mindset to really grok, the realities of the pre-modern human experience.
So yes, he is absolutely projecting a very post-Edwardian concept of the prudish priest backwards despite this have very little root in real history or narrative sense.
In the show, there is no such thing as flag of truce, assholes just come and go as they please. And if some of them get unlucky, it's presumably their own problem since show!society has not developed any mechanisms to deal with this problem.
In the books, there is a flag of truce of sorts. It's called a peace banner, usually taking form of banner of Faith. This is how people go to parleys and treat with their enemies - by bringing such banner with them. Killing people under a peace banner is frowned upon. Green delegation to Dragonstone flew a peace banner. Criston Cole negotiated (and was murdered) under a peace banner.
Neither Aemond no Lucerys flew a peace banner, thus neither of them enjoyed its protection under Westerosi custom.
Insane? That's just normal fandom behavior, especially during a hiatus. Even when I'm a big fan of the juggernaut ship for a fandom, I like to see the fandom support a wide variety of ships. Makes thing less boring. For example, I was impressed at how quickly Lucemond overtook Rhaenicent, ficwise.
This isn't how guests' right works. For one to receive it he needs to eat food (normally bread and salt) and the lord of the castle needs to recognize it. Luke himself never invoked it either
I think it what exactly counts as guest right and what doesn't depends a lot on the person. When Mance Rayder told Jon about his trip to winterfell to see Robert and the feast he specifically says he wasn't afraid of being caught because he would have guest right which would imply a far more broad definition that even includes deception. Jon notably does not argue his logic though he does think the story is almost unbelievable which it might be.
Asofai has lots of examples of people bending rules and traditions to exclude their own personal behavior.
Saw it recently, and while it's of course not perfect I really enjoyed it — though I did not read the books, so I can't comment on how well it's doing as an adaptation.
The CGI had... issues at times, but the general look and feel of everything, of the sets, of the costumes, was very nice.
(also my fiancée and i are apparently morons, since we did not notice they had changed the actresses, we were just "oh damn they're really good with make up, they actually do look quite older")
A detailed history of the fall of House Sapochnik.
www.esquire.com
According to Puck, a media startup founded by former Hollywood Reporter and CNN reporters, [Miguel] Sapochnik exited after HBO refused to make his wife, Alexis Raben, an additional producer for Season Two. Raben, who played a lady-in-waiting to Alicent Hightower (Olivia Cooke) named Tayla in four episodes of the prequel's first season, was also credited as a producer for Season One. She was also a big reason that Sapochnik even signed on to work on the prequel in the first place after previously telling Condal that "I'm never doing Thrones again," according to The Hollywood Reporter.
HBO cited that Raben was too inexperienced to stay on as a producer for Season Two, however, and Puck's report revealed that the network even had to bring in a mediator to de-escalate and resolve the dispute between the two parties. Sapochnik later fired his agents at WME and signed with rival agency CAA along with his wife.
"All your favorite characters will soon be conspiring at the council tables, marching with their armies and riding their dragons into battle," says showrunner Ryan Condal.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
The HBO fantasy hit has re-started production at Leavesden Studios in the United Kingdom.
"House of the Dragon has returned," said showrunner Ryan Condal in a statement. "We are thrilled to be shooting again with members of our original family as well as new talents on both sides of the camera."
That "new talent" includes the addition of executive producer and Emmy-winning director Alan Taylor, whose work on Game of Thrones was pivotal to helping establish the directorial tone of the series. ... Taylor was brought on board after the first season's co-showrunner and director Miguel Sapochnik stepped down from the series.
Can't wait to see what other attrocities the main characters commit that the show just kinda papers over with "woo, look at this cool set-piece. Isn't this character such a girl-boss?"
Filming on Season 2 of “House of the Dragon” will continue in the U.K. despite the U.S. writers’ strike. A source close to production tells Variety that scripts on the hit show ha…
variety.com
A source close to production tells Variety that scripts on the hit show have been done for some time, and that filming on the second season won't be affected.
... [C]ompleted scripts allow production to keep going, though it's unclear how the cabler will handle any rewrites that are required on the show.
News of "House of the Dragon's" unfazed production schedule comes the same day the Writers' Guild of Great Britain instructed its members in the U.K. who are also WGA members to stop all work on projects that are under the purview of the U.S. union.
Under strike rules, WGA members working internationally must down tools on any project that falls within the union's jurisdiction if there's active writing work taking place. As such, a number of U.S. projects filming in the U.K. could be affected by the strike — it's just a matter of how extensively such a disruption will impact the production overall.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
www.esquire.com
variety.com
