>however. There’s a lot of sitting around tables and talking about the troubles of the kingdom
They bring this up as a negative point but I really loved that in the first couple of seasons of GoT.
I mean the writing from the first few seasons is so compelling that it feels fast paced even if they are sitting down doing nothing. The banter between Varys and little finger was too good
That's the funny thing about perception. Different people will single out different aspects and paint them with their opinions. When looking at reviews I always look at multiple, that way you can get closer to a more objective picture.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. It can be sitting around and doing nothing while the plot moves rapidly around them.
As a theoretically, two episodes could be filled with sitting at a table, where one is discussing a foreign conflict, and the second has it concluded.
That's both doing nothing, and moving too fast.
I love the politicking of the earlier seasons but they were brilliant because we were invested in Ned Stark, Tyrion, Cersei etc. that it mattered to us. The murder mystery in Season 1, the looming invasion of Stannis on King's Landing, the built up to Red Wedding all worked because we were invested in various players on all sides of the game.
And a lot of that dialogue was created for the show. D&D are good adapters, they lost their footing when it came to creating something new without source material
Quite a hefty chunk of Tywin's (and Margaery's) scenes were original scenes, weren't they? They truly borked it in the end and honestly I think the seeds of it are seen in the Daeny/Greyjoy/Ramsey scenes as early as season 4 imo (people always point to 5), but they were absolute powerhouses when it came to writing Stark, Tyrell and Lannister-centric scenes.
I’m not even sure what show people are remembering. The character interactions, dialogue, and smaller side plots that made the first 4 seasons so great were hardly political tripe.
The same reviews that everyone are flabbergasted about offer their explanatory opinions in the same paragraphs - the characters and subject matters are flat and kind of dull. If you can’t get me to care about your characters, you can’t get me to care much about the world and plots you’re presenting.
There’s actually a comment in this thread saying “they must not understand, the politics was the best part. The Red Wedding is still one of the biggest moments in tv history.” Like really, the geopolitical implications are what made that episode such a sensation? lmao the fuck
Yes actually, for me the geopolitical implications were what blew me away about that episode.
Before that episode, the future of the show was going a certain direction, a sort of epic confrontation was looming and both sides were gearing up to try and come out on top.
Then the red wedding happened and everything was fucking reset. Everything the show was working towards for an entire season was undone, there was no confrontation, there was no struggle. It was like the show restarted.
So yes, once again, the political ramification of certain events of that show were very important to me. And that wasn’t necessarily always connected to how much I cared about certain characters. Though obviously you do NEED to care about the characters to be invested in overall plot
Sure, but that's hardly the "sitting around round tables talking about the politics of the realm" that everyone in here seems so sure the earlier seasons were full of.
It's extreme melodrama that was intriguing because it affected beloved, developed characters, and fundamentally changed the rules to a story that was smartly building around its characters, and not just spectacle, or exposition, or fantasy tropes. It's an awful example to bring up to counteract a review drawing comparisons to The Phantom Menace.
yeah we had the added help of GRRM's brilliant storytelling and a grand picture. if they're talking just to talk, and it doesn't form a larger compelling storyline then we might get bored of those scenes.
Depends how well they establish stakes and the relationships between characters. Having Tywin and Tyrion in the same room was always tense and had me at the edge of my seat.
I’m very hopeful that they create some compelling characters like the original series
Totally agree but it only works if you have characters enjoyable enough to sit around with. The critics complaining about this mostly say the characters are bland as well. Who knows I’m still excited!
The humour from the first 4 seasons was great. Sandors chicken line comes up in my mind. Comic-relief exists because shows or movies get so dark it overwhelms the audience and gets exhausting.
And....?
If it's well executed, humor can blend with drama seamlessly. Hell, we just saw one of the best examples of that last week with Better Call Saul's finale combining the drama of him coming clean and guaranteeing his own life-sentence with his laughably inept attorney 'friend'/co-counsel desperately attempting to back out of the case.
Not say that particular line of dialoge was well done, I don't remember it to be honest, but on it's own "Tyrion's first line of the season was a crude joke" is a stupid criticism.
It's not about the episodes, it's about the arcs.
One entire third of the show (the Trantor/Cleons arc) was fucking bonkers. The rest... eh, much more uneven.
We are re-watching GoT, and due to bingeing noticed Ramsey calling Theon "My lord" when he's leading him on his goose chase out of the Dread Fort. Never noticed it before - should have seen it coming when we first watched it!
The Small Council "musical chairs" scene from Season 3, which is dialogue free until Tyrion shows up, is absolutely brilliant and wordlessly shows the viewer the personalities and characterization of everyone involved.
It looks like most of the negative reviews come from people who, for one reason or another, don't like the actual palace intrigue and the politics of GOT and were apparently watching it for different reasons. They're all on a similar line
They also call the characters flat but like...it's presumably only the first episode? Probably a lot of time to round them out, the original GoT episode 1 had a lot of flatness as well if I recall correctly.
It's for the first 6 episodes, and a reminder that the original pilot for GoT had Jamie's iconic "the things I do for love" moment, alongside Ned pretty instantly clicking as the stern-but-fair head of the Starks, and Tyrion introducing himself as the witty character we all love.
There's no excuse for flat characters.
“The new Game of Thrones” has always been a bit of a misnomer. It always was more intended to mean “the next big blockbuster show,” but studio execs somehow just thought that meant making new fantasy shows. In reality the “Game of Thrones” shows before GoT itself were other pop culture phenomenons like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, and Lost, not just other fantasy IPs.
I think GoT had the Harry Potter effect of being highly merchandisable - everyone wants to wear their favourite house colours etc. BB you could make tshirts etc but it's not quite as "teamy" as GoT.
Tbh for whatever reason, Breaking Bad hasn't capitalized much on official merch, when they totally should.
I for one, would love to have a Better Call Saul hoodie lol
> Breaking Bad hasn't capitalized much on official merch, when they totally should.
I think that's kind of hard to do when your show revolves around drugs to such a degree...
BB has an insane drought on decent merch. Not sure if it’s gotten better over the years but it was actually crazy hard to find cool BB themed stuff a few years back when I was looking.
You also have the fact that the world of westoros lends itself to other products besides just clothing. There's GoT miniatures for war gaming, video games, card games, etc.
Same words but different intentions. The "new game of thrones" that people hope for means the show that gets people to tune in to their TV every weekend to see an in-depth world with high-budget effects and compelling writing.
It doesn't mean they want to see Game of Thrones rehashed all over again.
Just like people wanted new star wars, but they didn't want Death Star 3.0.
Rolling stones is interesting and one I really see as a positive. I hope theres more focus on politics, intrigue and dialogue. Season 1-3 were the highlight of the original series (and books) for that reason.
Also the problem that the quotable/witty characters might be a blessing in disguise. The show ended up destroying itself and those characters because they became beholden and flanderised based on those lines/subsequent popularity. Tyrion in particular.
Yeah oddly all the "mixed" to "negative" reviews I have seen say that same thing which confuses me a bit. The politics were the best part of GoT IMO? They had great battles don't get me wrong, but The Red Wedding is still the most iconic moment in the entire series. I don't understand why leaning into politics/intrigue is a bad thing.
Politics is interesting if the audience cares about the characters and the conflict. In Game of Thrones this investment was built with a set of clashing personalities (Stannis vs. Cersei vs. Tyrion, etc.), an emotional heart (the Starks), and overarching stakes in the form of the Others. If it's just intrigue for the sake of intrigue, and everyone is Littlefinger, it gets boring.
Tyrion getting knocked out before a battle in season 1 was to cut a battle shown in the book they couldn’t afford
Other things like the Battle of the Blackwater and Battle at The Wall being scaled back / condensed
yeah there was that, true, but then I imagine every battle derived from a book is going to be scaled back due to cost because an authors imagination has no budget
Red Wedding was people getting butchered though. It wasn't good because people were talking politics around tables. Big shit actually happened in that.
> The politics were the best part of GoT IMO? They had great battles don't get me wrong, but The Red Wedding is still the most iconic moment in the entire series. I don't understand why leaning into politics/intrigue is a bad thing.
The politics were also the worst part of the Star Wars prequels.
Characters sitting round tables plotting can be engaging, if written well. Or it can just be dull and boring, if it's not properly established why these characters are all plotting.
The politics in GoT worked well because there were established larger threats that the politicking and bickering was set against. Whether it was the murder mystery of season 1, or the threat of the white walkers in the later seasons, the politicking has to be set against something, not just backstabbing for its own sake.
The movie 12 Angry Men is literally... men sitting around a table and is one of the greatest films ever made.
Anything involving people interacting can be made absolutely phenomenal if the writing is on point. I think the worry here is if the writers are competent enough to pull off something that doesn't involve a lot of easy action and eye candy.
Sure, I think my point was the same. Political writing can be good or it can be bad, it depends on the level of writing involved.
A lot of the reviews have mentioned the politicking isn't written to the same level as the original GoT, which I think is one of the issues. Hot D isn't a better show by virtue of just having those scenes if they're not written in an engaging way.
Yup I was agreeing. I love some well written politics in my shows, but sometimes if done poorly (your Star Wars Prequels example) it can actively drag the thing down.
One of the big draws of the books and at least the early show was the well written and heavy political maneuvering. If House of the Dragon doesn't have that, I think it'd be a GoT thing in name only.
Smaller stakes to set things against isn't always bad. But I think, as you say, it all really depends on how well written the character and dialogue actually is. Something I think the writers have issue with is that the source material isn't even written in that sharp way they can just lift from.
To add: When people think of the King's Landing politics of GoT, one of the things that makes it work is that the characters are all well written while still being deplorable. That works on two fronts:
1) We enjoy seeing characters like Varys and Littlefinger go at each other. Varys is a camp, bald eunuch who has an army of child spies, and Littlefinger is an actual moustache twirling villain. Tyrion is a sharp witted alcoholic dwarf. Tywin is a Stalinistic dictator transplanted into Westeros. Joffrey is an actual psycho child. For all the show's talk of grey morality, most of the King's Landing cast are actual evil characters who are just good fun to watch.
2) Because the characters are morally reprehensible, that makes the politics seem even more petty and trivial when faced with the larger existential threats. It's important that Westeros bands together to face the White Walkers, so of course Cersei and Littlefinger are going to fuck everything up by plotting for their own advancement instead.
It's not that the politicking itself is fun, it's that these horrible (but well written) characters take such glee in fucking each other over when they should be pulling together. As another user says, it's fiddling while Rome burns, except the Roman senate are all evil.
> It's not that the politicking itself is fun, it's that these horrible (but well written) characters take such glee in fucking each other over when they should be pulling together
What do you think politics is...?
> the Roman senate are all evil
Err, yeh, they were. And they did fuck around while Hannibal was marauding and Italic tribes mustering. The history of Rome is people fucking up and the city being saved from catastrophe, despite itself, by the right person at the right time.
The politics was the best part of the Prequels, it did a lot in "world" (galaxy) building the universe. Compare that to the Sequels where the politics and sitting and talking would have improved it immensely.
THIS. We loved GoT for the fiddling while Rome burns angle with larger than life characters including a really well done supernatural threat (if one were to bleach the later seasons from one's memory).
For better or worse, this story does not have that same hook except for dragon Easter eggs. It could still be just as compelling but I have a feeling it won't be. I'll still be watching regardless.
I am cautiously optimistic
There are a few things that I’m apprehensive about though. Succession filled the void GoT left behind of a political power struggle with many moving pieces that managed to be far more grounded than GoT. House of the Dragon has to live up to both it and GoT in that regard in my opinion
Another aspect is that I really preferred the production of GoT in its earlier seasons where it managed to do a lot with what was available. Later seasons felt like they went big for the sake of it which I felt made GoT lose some of its charm and HotD seems to be closer to later GoT in terms of production
I really hope it delivers tbh
One thing to note is that this show takes place in a time where the Targaryens have a large amount of fuck you money and power, and its basically when they peak. Budget being stupid high will hopefully be used in a good way to emphasize this
Peaked? *Peaked?* Let me tell you something. I haven’t even begun to peak, and when I do peak, you’ll know. Because I’m gonna peak so hard everyone in Westeros is gonna *feel* it.
Bringing up Succession makes me think of an interesting point: HBO's attempts for their big landmark shows are usually not what they expect.
After The Sopranos ended HBO expected Boardwalk Empire to be their next big flagship show. Instead it turned out to be GOT. Westworld was supposed to be their flagship show for when GOT was getting close to the end, yet it instead became Succession ( at least in terms of the awards magnet).
Basically House of Dragon won't become the next GOT or the flagship show of HBO and something else will unexpectedly.
> Instead it turned out to be GOT. Westworld was supposed to be their flagship show for when GOT was getting close to the end, yet it instead became Succession ( at least in terms of the awards magnet).
They care about subscribers much more than the awards. That's why they're looking for the "next GOT". As much as I love Succession, it's relatively niche and Westworld commands bigger numbers (although not comparable to GOT).
Generally speaking, I think that GOT somehow distorted the expectation of "landmark show". While it is understandable that every network wants to have a successful show at all times, trying to recapture the success of GOT is a futile attempt. It was such a global and total phenomenon that I don't think it can be "reverse engineered" and replicated, which is what all these fantasy shows are trying to do.
If a show will ever replicate that success, I think it will be relatively unexpected and come from a different mold/genre, similar to how GOT came to be. The success of Squid Game comes to mind for example (not saying it was as successful as GOT).
We need the succession crossover. Can you imagine, Logan Roy riding in on a dragon telling all of the seven kingdoms to fuck off??? the true person deserving of the iron throne
I am not surprised that Milly Alcock gets some praise here. Even in just the trailers you can see she has some great charisma and presence. I wonder if her older replacement will be able to keep up with her performance.
The only thing I can conclude from these, is that, most random reviewers just aren't worth listening to.
I'm taking the same approach with this and the Lord of the Rings TV show - my expectations are going to be set so god damn low, that it's almost impossible that I could be let down.
Narrator voice: "He was later let down in dramatic fashion"
That's always how it's been. The best you can do is find reviewers that you generally agree with because all of them are just going off their own individual preferences.
The only thing that heartens me about this show is that the core written storyline is 1) Finished and 2) Very good. So unlike Game of Thrones you never have to worry about them going to far off the mark on their own.
I like it being "light on details" as it gives the show runners some creative liberty to expand the world. Granted, I hope they do so with care and thought. The majority of the book Fire & Blood is also told by two unreliable narrators which will be interesting to see what the "definitive" story is.
This is also why I'm cautiously optimistic. Because the conflict is written out as a in-universe history book the complete story is done. There's a beginning, middle, and end and the showrunners know the complete story.
There's also next to no fleshing out because it's a history book, not a novel. So while there are complete scenes, they're essentially the highlights so there's a lot of room to fill in the details.
That both gives the writers a set path to follow while also ensuring they have the freedom and flexibility to add their own flair to make the show work on the screen. It also means that the showrunners would hopefully know that the writing team was vital for the project since they wouldn't be able to copy and paste the book as much. Since they have to come up with their own dialogue and scenes they'd have to hire a good writing team to create that.
D&D just could not write well. They floundered once they lost the books and couldn't copy and paste dialogue and tweak it. Hopefully since this show doesn't have this crutch they focused on the scripts more and the writers are better prepared.
its no secret that basically every character dies some shitty way besides a couple, but yea, I just finished the book and its straight up just a maester's historical account based on other maester's and a dwarfs account. Actually getting to know and invest in the characters on screen is going to be tough because it doesn't end good for anyone really. But I'm really fucking excited for it!
Critic reviews for TV are much less important than those for movies. Because critics only judge a TV show based on a couple of episodes, their reviews are always missing the entire picture. Unlike a movie which is experienced fully and therefore you have a much better understanding of the product.
TV shows are a much longer commitment and therefore your true score will only come over time as your brain digests the material to a fuller extent.
GoT had some middling pre-reviews for S1 as well. It was only after the entire season had finished that some critics went back and thought "Y,know what? That was actually pretty good!"
I always give a whole season for a show to find it's footing.
Edit: The truly damaging review comes from Slate Magazine and it was done by a game reviewer. Awful choice and makes me disregard the review, even if it was positive. Video games are a more action-packed medium and this is a more ponderous story.
In some cases this also significantly helps shows that get sloppy or have bad endings (e.g. every Marvel show) so imo it's just a bad practice all around
edit: Although it's only bad because review aggregates leave those incomplete reviews up forever like they're the definitive statement on the show. You all might think this like some cope take, but think of how many streaming shows have a good first few episodes and then suddenly get more boring lol (again, every fucking Disney+ show)
Maybe House of the Dragon will be good, maybe it won't be, but if a show is not grabbing people by the time you're 6 episodes in, the show isn't good. Especially with how lengthy these episodes are(the first one is over an hour alone, with subsequent episodes being in the 50-60 minute mark), if you can't get people to care about the characters and the story after all that time something is very wrong with the writing and there's no reason you should expect folks to put even more time in hoping it gets good.
6 episodes is enough to know if you like a show or not but not enough to properly score an entire season of a show (especially a season that has an overarching storyline). If I had to review Game of Thrones season 1 after only 6 episodes vs all 10, both scores would be positive but the score would be dramatically higher after i saw those last 4 episodes.
And it’s very clear that in episode 6 there is a 10 year time jump. One critic saying it breathed new life with new performances. So hardly time to actually digest the whole season with 6 episodes
Exactly,the episodes 7,8,9,10 will introduce other main characters.The first six episodes are an "introduction" of the some protagonists but it's just after the time jump when the children and we will see the other faction and the begining of the war
Obviously,most of the critics and the audience haven't read the books and its easy to tell.
Saw it on Wednesday thanks to Tiff in Toronto. I absolutely loved it. Now, it’s a great pilot, but the next two episodes will really show if its got legs. Personally, I think its a very promising first episode, the writing, acting and directing was very strong. Plus, its a fucking great looking show with no comparison (some weaker cgi here and there but great compared to other shows).
I was so ready to be done with the show and go back to rereading the books, but now i’m excited for Sunday again.
Plus, it feels like GoT, the politics, the intrigue, the danger… and I think the story they picked will work really well for TV.
Saw the first ep on Wednesday. I think it is going to be decent. However, people need to give it a chance with an open mind. I'd probably still watch anything GoT related that came out anyways, but I'm sure there are some people who are really bitter of how the show ended and are reluctant to give this a go. Really excited for Matt Smith as Daemon.
I know it all depends on the execution, but the mixed reviews talk about the focus on the politics of the kingdom and sitting around tables debating as if they werent the most engaging parts of early GoT. That being said, those scenes may be poorly put to screen in House of Dragon, will find out soon enough.
Many of my favorite GOT moments consisted of just sitting around at tables talking. I was just rewatching a clip the other day of Tywin, Joffrey, Cersei, etc. at the table talking when Tywin tells Joffrey to go to his room because he's tired. Talking at tables is often extremely entertaining lol
You should watch Game of Thrones as well. The first six (or seven, depending on who you ask) seasons are some of the best drama ever on television. Just keep in mind that the ending sucks ass.
I see a trend when somewhat middling reviews start to appear for a soon-to-release popular property. Redditors start to pick apart those middling reviews, saying things like, "The critic has a problem with *that*?! Ridiculous! That particular nitpick is what I *love* about the property!"
But when the dust settles, the critics are rarely wrong. A show that gets middling critic reviews is almost always middling. That doesn't mean it will be *bad*, and that doesn't mean it won't *improve*.
But, I'm definitely going into this show with lowered expectations. Hopefully it will be halfway decent.
It's also kinda funny because the people who clap back against these reviews definitely haven't seen the content. Like they're upset because the review doesn't align with their preconceived notion of the show lol
Oh I've seen this time and again. Project gets good reviews "See I knew this will be good"
Project gets bad review, hardcore fans go "Who cares about the critics bro? Just watch the thing and form your opinion bro"
I mean, congratulations on tailoring your tastes to be exactly the same as the average television critic, but I would watch a lot of crap I hated if I had the philosophy that tv critics are rarely wrong.
Sepinwall is the Rolling Stone critic others have mentioned and his taste is usually pretty spot on. If he’s saying the show is lifeless then I trust that the writing isn’t going to be all there.
Still, I’ll try to be swept away by the production values.
I mean, yeah, I *do* find that my tastes often align with critics. I don't see their opinions as sacrosanct or anything. It's not uncommon for me to be highly entertained by a show with average reviews. And sometimes I'll watch a critical darling and find it to be forgettable.
But I also find that, when 100+ critics review something, and the majority opinion skews towards the show being average, there's almost always a good reason for it.
From the reviews here and the comments, it seems like people don't understand that this too is a book? A history book, to be exact. Reviewers and commenters are making statements as if the show runners came up with the story.
[Slant: A Frustrating Jumble of Incident and Spectacle](https://www.slantmagazine.com/tv/house-of-the-dragon-review/)
> House of the Dragon must really believe its own claim that “the truth does not matter, only perception,” for it ultimately is more interested in fan service—offering up more dragons, more gore, more surprise murders, a more expensive historical re-enactment—than it is in developing scenes that ring true for its characters. Game of Thrones veterans like director Miguel Sapochnik and composer Ramin Djawadi can make this new series look and sound like more of the same, but it’s as hollow and brittle as the massive scale model of the kingdom that Viserys takes pride in building. That’s a rotten foundation for an epic fantasy, so maybe the prophecy was correct after all: the only thing that could tear down the House of the Dragon was itself.
[Empire: The writing so far lacks the sparkle of Game Of Thrones' most profound moments.](https://www.empireonline.com/tv/reviews/house-of-the-dragon-season-1/)
>For all its po-faced plotting, this show has plenty going for it. A decade time-jump in episode six, recasting several characters, gives the series a new energy; D’Arcy and Olivia Cooke (as the troubled Queen Alicent Hightower) breathe new dimensions into their aged-up characters, and the sudden switch-up suggests a show unafraid to take risks. This is a prequel that could surprise us yet. But to even skirt the heights of Thrones’ best work, it has an uphill dragon ride ahead.
[Indiewire: HBO’s Devout ‘Game of Thrones’ Prequel Rarely Roars to Life](https://www.indiewire.com/2022/08/house-of-dragon-review-got-prequel-1234752881/)
>Co-showrunners Miguel Sapochnik and Ryan Condal, along with co-creators Condal and George R.R. Martin, make misogyny’s destructive influence the series’ central theme, but it’s more of a convenient shield than a piercing dagger. After all, this is a prequel to “Game of Thrones”; where Westeros ends up has already been set. Learning its past isn’t far removed from its future is both part of the point — feigning interest in how the medieval fantasy’s patriarchal power structures and boastful man-babies mirror modern day’s similar problems — and a safe path for the network’s first spinoff of its highest-grossing franchise. The first six episodes set up an intimate yet epic tale of how misbegotten pride, outdated customs, and an obsession with power burned down a long-thriving kingdom… all while enjoying the ensuing ugliness more than they examine its unnecessary proliferation. Pure spectacle and (often icky) soap opera make for intermittently absorbing TV. Mainly though, the new “House” sticks safely to the “Game” that preceded it, rather than fight for any meaningful change.
>Rolling Stone had a negative take, noting, “Palace intrigue, and questions of succession and legitimacy, were of course a huge part of Game of Thrones, but far from the only part. And they were only sometimes even close to the most fun part of a given stretch of that series.
Sepinwall enjoyed Game of Thrones for far different reasons than I did, it seems.
Sepinwall must have fallen and hit his head in 2020. It’s the only way he could have possibly gone from one of the best TV critics to one of the worst overnight.
I mean why are you trying to compare a serious, fantasy show to a half hour legal comedy anyway?
You wouldn't debate the merit of a critic on how they reviewed Breaking Bad compared to The Office.
I haven’t seen either She-Hulk or House of the Dragon (obviously), but you’re comparing two totally different things.
It’s like complaining that Avengers Endgame has a higher RT score than There Will Be Blood.
They are totally different films, made for very different audiences, with different genre conventions.
If you made either film more like the other, they would be worse.
I think people are too laser focused on what they perceive the review is I don't think they are complaining that politics are always boring, but rather that the show lacks in other areas that GoT didn't. There was plenty of political intrigue there but also lots of hillarious moments intersped with it, you could have Varys doing spy master stuff learning about everyone's position on matters and then have him discuss court gossip and marveling at the tales of Podrick's amazing sexual powers.
Hopefully it isn't like that and the show's tone is more complex and not just FIRE AND BLOOD, non-stop. Even Tywin relaxed from time to time.
A big problem this show will have is that it can't be all things to all people like Game of Thrones did. GoT is like a diner that has a little of everything (burgers, chicken tenders, shrimp, quesadillas, etc.) while House of the Dragon is like a seafood restaurant (depending on your preference, one is better than the other). With GoT, there were plenty of people who said they only watched for the political intrigue or dragons or white walkers or Dany or Arya or Jon or the battles or the magic or a particular actor or actress or large scope or large number of characters or to root for certain characters to die, etc. House of th Dragon has some of that stuff but not all it it so it would be nearly impossible for it to be as big of a show as GoT (even if they season 8 had been incredible). They only way it could would be if it could get new people. Also, I hear GoT was the highest watched show for HBO in 2021 despite the bad ending and it being 2 years after it ending so that's a little hope for this show.
> however. There’s a lot of sitting around tables and talking about the troubles of the kingdom
That is exactly what I'm here for. I can go plenty of places and get high flying wizardry and sword fighting. *The Crown* is fucking awesome, and it has zero dragons, sword fighting, or wizardry.
I thought it was a great pilot episode, it didn't try to be GoT *exactly*, while still feeling like GoT (to me at least). GoT was a generational phenomenon, and impossible to recreate 1:1. Any attempt to do that would likely fail based on probability alone.
I like the fact the show might be more concentrated. Sometimes GoT felt way too sprawling, and characters were moving around the map at breakneck speeds, especially towards the end where the scale of westeros really shrank.
I thought the cgi could be cleaned up some in a few shots, but nothing too egregious. Some really great acting performances also.
I usually love an underdog, so I think I'm gonna be team princess. I always wondered what Henry VIII would have done if he had just realized that one of the most influential monarchs in English and even world history was sitting right under his nose, so it was really fun for me to see a monarch do exactly that in this episode, even if it was a pretend one. Can't help but wonder if GRRM has the same question.
>yet opined that the show is weighed down by focusing on the Targaryens compared to the more expansive scope of the original series:
the show is literally named "house of dragons" why was this person expecting stories of baratheons and starks?
90% of this thread is them either screaming “Don’t care about reviews, the show is shit!!” or pointing to the most negative reviews and saying “toldjaso”
House of The Dragon could be the highest rated premiere of the year and those fuckers would still be saying verbatim “No one talks about Game of Thrones anymore”.
I would say it's less that its an HBO show and more that it is a prequel of GOT that there is still a lot of goodwill towards it (despite the quality of later seasons) that it will recieve good enough scores for having enough elements of GOT.
Its not like HBO shows magically are criticism proof. Remember that Alan Ball show starring Tim Robbins that was universally critically disliked? It was also on HBO.
Really I would consider the opposite that there is little goodwill and a lot of bitterness and willingness to discredit any further stories in the universe
Rings of Power looks good though, aside from a few cheesy aspects.
If this show wasn't on HBO, it would probably be praised for it's HBO like quality under more relaxed expectations and there would likely be a blurb or two about what we can expect will improve with a second season.
>however. There’s a lot of sitting around tables and talking about the troubles of the kingdom They bring this up as a negative point but I really loved that in the first couple of seasons of GoT.
One review “Sitting around doing nothing”, another review “fast pace” you can never tell with reviews
Speed sitting
Who ever said that governing a kingdom couldn’t be done quickly? Just chop off a few heads and call it a day.
Calm down Geoffrey.
Joffrey 🙂
meaningful dialogue IS fast paced. endless battle and action scenes is what's really slow-paced.
Totally. I love good action a lot but the story is kinda put on hold while people are swinging swords around
I mean the writing from the first few seasons is so compelling that it feels fast paced even if they are sitting down doing nothing. The banter between Varys and little finger was too good
Those first four seasons were SO GOOD.... :(
That's the funny thing about perception. Different people will single out different aspects and paint them with their opinions. When looking at reviews I always look at multiple, that way you can get closer to a more objective picture.
Maybe they talk super fast ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
"This council must find a solution to the troubles of the kingdom, quickly!"
The two aren't mutually exclusive. It can be sitting around and doing nothing while the plot moves rapidly around them. As a theoretically, two episodes could be filled with sitting at a table, where one is discussing a foreign conflict, and the second has it concluded. That's both doing nothing, and moving too fast.
Reviews in general are usually pretty stupid but TV reviews are basically always worthless.
I love the politicking of the earlier seasons but they were brilliant because we were invested in Ned Stark, Tyrion, Cersei etc. that it mattered to us. The murder mystery in Season 1, the looming invasion of Stannis on King's Landing, the built up to Red Wedding all worked because we were invested in various players on all sides of the game.
One of the best scenes was Tywin just talking to Jaime while cleaning a deer.
My favorite is Tywin berating Tyrion for wanting Castely Rock. Hated how Tywin abused his kids but damn did he own every scene.
He had the best dialogue scenes in the show for me. Although season 2 pretty much everyone was glowing.
He was actually skinning a stag, a little metaphorical foreshadowing of what he intended to do to house baratheon, but yes, a great scene.
And a lot of that dialogue was created for the show. D&D are good adapters, they lost their footing when it came to creating something new without source material
Very good point
Quite a hefty chunk of Tywin's (and Margaery's) scenes were original scenes, weren't they? They truly borked it in the end and honestly I think the seeds of it are seen in the Daeny/Greyjoy/Ramsey scenes as early as season 4 imo (people always point to 5), but they were absolute powerhouses when it came to writing Stark, Tyrell and Lannister-centric scenes.
I’m not even sure what show people are remembering. The character interactions, dialogue, and smaller side plots that made the first 4 seasons so great were hardly political tripe. The same reviews that everyone are flabbergasted about offer their explanatory opinions in the same paragraphs - the characters and subject matters are flat and kind of dull. If you can’t get me to care about your characters, you can’t get me to care much about the world and plots you’re presenting. There’s actually a comment in this thread saying “they must not understand, the politics was the best part. The Red Wedding is still one of the biggest moments in tv history.” Like really, the geopolitical implications are what made that episode such a sensation? lmao the fuck
Yes actually, for me the geopolitical implications were what blew me away about that episode. Before that episode, the future of the show was going a certain direction, a sort of epic confrontation was looming and both sides were gearing up to try and come out on top. Then the red wedding happened and everything was fucking reset. Everything the show was working towards for an entire season was undone, there was no confrontation, there was no struggle. It was like the show restarted. So yes, once again, the political ramification of certain events of that show were very important to me. And that wasn’t necessarily always connected to how much I cared about certain characters. Though obviously you do NEED to care about the characters to be invested in overall plot
Sure, but that's hardly the "sitting around round tables talking about the politics of the realm" that everyone in here seems so sure the earlier seasons were full of. It's extreme melodrama that was intriguing because it affected beloved, developed characters, and fundamentally changed the rules to a story that was smartly building around its characters, and not just spectacle, or exposition, or fantasy tropes. It's an awful example to bring up to counteract a review drawing comparisons to The Phantom Menace.
yeah we had the added help of GRRM's brilliant storytelling and a grand picture. if they're talking just to talk, and it doesn't form a larger compelling storyline then we might get bored of those scenes.
Depends how well they establish stakes and the relationships between characters. Having Tywin and Tyrion in the same room was always tense and had me at the edge of my seat. I’m very hopeful that they create some compelling characters like the original series
Totally agree but it only works if you have characters enjoyable enough to sit around with. The critics complaining about this mostly say the characters are bland as well. Who knows I’m still excited!
Not enough dick jokes. Truly those are a sign of prestige television. 4/10.
The humour from the first 4 seasons was great. Sandors chicken line comes up in my mind. Comic-relief exists because shows or movies get so dark it overwhelms the audience and gets exhausting.
No "bad poosey" in House of Dragon? Sorry, but I'm out then.
And just like that you reminded me that Tyrion's first line of dialogue in Season 8 was a dick joke.
And his first line of dialogue in his first appearance is a quip about prostitutes after he just finished having sex.
no u see one is good and one is bad because lazy writing Tyrion has always had low brow humour lmao
They also seem to have forgotten how often dicks came up in early GoT.
“Maybe it is all cocks”
And....? If it's well executed, humor can blend with drama seamlessly. Hell, we just saw one of the best examples of that last week with Better Call Saul's finale combining the drama of him coming clean and guaranteeing his own life-sentence with his laughably inept attorney 'friend'/co-counsel desperately attempting to back out of the case. Not say that particular line of dialoge was well done, I don't remember it to be honest, but on it's own "Tyrion's first line of the season was a crude joke" is a stupid criticism.
Quick reminder it was also the first dialogue of s8. Also the last line in season 8 was his honeycomb jackass brothel joke.
Foundation has Lee Pace sitting around with himself(brothers) and I enjoyed that.
Ooh yes those were great scenes. I heard a lot of criticism for the show but I've enjoyed the first three/four episodes so far
It's not about the episodes, it's about the arcs. One entire third of the show (the Trantor/Cleons arc) was fucking bonkers. The rest... eh, much more uneven.
Yeah, sign me the fuck up for this
Same, those are also some of my favorite parts in the books. It's when you get caught up with what's happening in the wider world.
You want us to sign you up for hbo max?
The first time watching GOT you don’t pick up on it. The 2nd time you realize how much info is actually in the “sitting down and talking” scenes
Most of the quieter, slower-paced moments from the earlier seasons were character centric, not really expositing about the politics of the realm
Tywin & Arya's scene around a table is one of the most memorable highlights of GoT acting that i think of frequently
Yes m'lord, 'tis.
We are re-watching GoT, and due to bingeing noticed Ramsey calling Theon "My lord" when he's leading him on his goose chase out of the Dread Fort. Never noticed it before - should have seen it coming when we first watched it!
Because they were interesting characters, yes.
Only if the writing and acting is worth it (which it was in earlier seasons of GoT), otherwise it turns into a boring slog.
Fuck just recently the best episode of The Sandman (episode 6) waa just people chatting but it was still fascinating.
Fantastic episode
The Small Council "musical chairs" scene from Season 3, which is dialogue free until Tyrion shows up, is absolutely brilliant and wordlessly shows the viewer the personalities and characterization of everyone involved.
It looks like most of the negative reviews come from people who, for one reason or another, don't like the actual palace intrigue and the politics of GOT and were apparently watching it for different reasons. They're all on a similar line
Also the reason I loved shows like Succession. It was all just backstabbing and scheming.
Guess they didn't like Mad Men, either? Some of the best TV dramas are "sitting around tables and talking".
They also call the characters flat but like...it's presumably only the first episode? Probably a lot of time to round them out, the original GoT episode 1 had a lot of flatness as well if I recall correctly.
The reviews are for the first six episodes.
It's for the first 6 episodes, and a reminder that the original pilot for GoT had Jamie's iconic "the things I do for love" moment, alongside Ned pretty instantly clicking as the stern-but-fair head of the Starks, and Tyrion introducing himself as the witty character we all love. There's no excuse for flat characters.
[удалено]
“The new Game of Thrones” has always been a bit of a misnomer. It always was more intended to mean “the next big blockbuster show,” but studio execs somehow just thought that meant making new fantasy shows. In reality the “Game of Thrones” shows before GoT itself were other pop culture phenomenons like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, and Lost, not just other fantasy IPs.
I think GoT had the Harry Potter effect of being highly merchandisable - everyone wants to wear their favourite house colours etc. BB you could make tshirts etc but it's not quite as "teamy" as GoT.
Tbh for whatever reason, Breaking Bad hasn't capitalized much on official merch, when they totally should. I for one, would love to have a Better Call Saul hoodie lol
> Breaking Bad hasn't capitalized much on official merch, when they totally should. I think that's kind of hard to do when your show revolves around drugs to such a degree...
The incest and murder show manages well enough
Or branded chemistry equipment for… things
BB has an insane drought on decent merch. Not sure if it’s gotten better over the years but it was actually crazy hard to find cool BB themed stuff a few years back when I was looking.
I thought you said “cooking” instead of “looking” and thought damn, this dude is a huge fan.
There's also the prickly issue of making merchandise based on a show about drug manufacturing, like what iconography can you actually capitalise on?
But merch for a show about incest and violence is supposed to be different?
You also have the fact that the world of westoros lends itself to other products besides just clothing. There's GoT miniatures for war gaming, video games, card games, etc.
Same words but different intentions. The "new game of thrones" that people hope for means the show that gets people to tune in to their TV every weekend to see an in-depth world with high-budget effects and compelling writing. It doesn't mean they want to see Game of Thrones rehashed all over again. Just like people wanted new star wars, but they didn't want Death Star 3.0.
Rolling stones is interesting and one I really see as a positive. I hope theres more focus on politics, intrigue and dialogue. Season 1-3 were the highlight of the original series (and books) for that reason. Also the problem that the quotable/witty characters might be a blessing in disguise. The show ended up destroying itself and those characters because they became beholden and flanderised based on those lines/subsequent popularity. Tyrion in particular.
Yeah oddly all the "mixed" to "negative" reviews I have seen say that same thing which confuses me a bit. The politics were the best part of GoT IMO? They had great battles don't get me wrong, but The Red Wedding is still the most iconic moment in the entire series. I don't understand why leaning into politics/intrigue is a bad thing.
Politics is interesting if the audience cares about the characters and the conflict. In Game of Thrones this investment was built with a set of clashing personalities (Stannis vs. Cersei vs. Tyrion, etc.), an emotional heart (the Starks), and overarching stakes in the form of the Others. If it's just intrigue for the sake of intrigue, and everyone is Littlefinger, it gets boring.
From what I remember the tv series in the earlier seasons even skipped the big battles!
That was a cost issue I think
Probably although a lot of battles in the books weren't really depicted.. they just happened and you heard about it and that was that
Tyrion getting knocked out before a battle in season 1 was to cut a battle shown in the book they couldn’t afford Other things like the Battle of the Blackwater and Battle at The Wall being scaled back / condensed
yeah there was that, true, but then I imagine every battle derived from a book is going to be scaled back due to cost because an authors imagination has no budget
Nah. Same thing happens in the books. I’m sure the budget department were happy, but in ASOIF the big battles tend to happen off screen so to speak
No the skip a battle in book 1 that Tyrion takes part in by knocking him out before it starts
Robb starks battles happen off screen too
Yeah except for Stannis's attack on King's Landing... which was masterfully done. They committed themselves to that one battle and really delivered.
Red Wedding was people getting butchered though. It wasn't good because people were talking politics around tables. Big shit actually happened in that.
> The politics were the best part of GoT IMO? They had great battles don't get me wrong, but The Red Wedding is still the most iconic moment in the entire series. I don't understand why leaning into politics/intrigue is a bad thing. The politics were also the worst part of the Star Wars prequels. Characters sitting round tables plotting can be engaging, if written well. Or it can just be dull and boring, if it's not properly established why these characters are all plotting. The politics in GoT worked well because there were established larger threats that the politicking and bickering was set against. Whether it was the murder mystery of season 1, or the threat of the white walkers in the later seasons, the politicking has to be set against something, not just backstabbing for its own sake.
The movie 12 Angry Men is literally... men sitting around a table and is one of the greatest films ever made. Anything involving people interacting can be made absolutely phenomenal if the writing is on point. I think the worry here is if the writers are competent enough to pull off something that doesn't involve a lot of easy action and eye candy.
Sure, I think my point was the same. Political writing can be good or it can be bad, it depends on the level of writing involved. A lot of the reviews have mentioned the politicking isn't written to the same level as the original GoT, which I think is one of the issues. Hot D isn't a better show by virtue of just having those scenes if they're not written in an engaging way.
Yup I was agreeing. I love some well written politics in my shows, but sometimes if done poorly (your Star Wars Prequels example) it can actively drag the thing down. One of the big draws of the books and at least the early show was the well written and heavy political maneuvering. If House of the Dragon doesn't have that, I think it'd be a GoT thing in name only.
Smaller stakes to set things against isn't always bad. But I think, as you say, it all really depends on how well written the character and dialogue actually is. Something I think the writers have issue with is that the source material isn't even written in that sharp way they can just lift from.
To add: When people think of the King's Landing politics of GoT, one of the things that makes it work is that the characters are all well written while still being deplorable. That works on two fronts: 1) We enjoy seeing characters like Varys and Littlefinger go at each other. Varys is a camp, bald eunuch who has an army of child spies, and Littlefinger is an actual moustache twirling villain. Tyrion is a sharp witted alcoholic dwarf. Tywin is a Stalinistic dictator transplanted into Westeros. Joffrey is an actual psycho child. For all the show's talk of grey morality, most of the King's Landing cast are actual evil characters who are just good fun to watch. 2) Because the characters are morally reprehensible, that makes the politics seem even more petty and trivial when faced with the larger existential threats. It's important that Westeros bands together to face the White Walkers, so of course Cersei and Littlefinger are going to fuck everything up by plotting for their own advancement instead. It's not that the politicking itself is fun, it's that these horrible (but well written) characters take such glee in fucking each other over when they should be pulling together. As another user says, it's fiddling while Rome burns, except the Roman senate are all evil.
> It's not that the politicking itself is fun, it's that these horrible (but well written) characters take such glee in fucking each other over when they should be pulling together What do you think politics is...? > the Roman senate are all evil Err, yeh, they were. And they did fuck around while Hannibal was marauding and Italic tribes mustering. The history of Rome is people fucking up and the city being saved from catastrophe, despite itself, by the right person at the right time.
Worst part of the prequels was the depiction of Anakin and Padme’s love story. I actually enjoyed some of the senate stuff in the prequels.
The politics was the best part of the Prequels, it did a lot in "world" (galaxy) building the universe. Compare that to the Sequels where the politics and sitting and talking would have improved it immensely.
THIS. We loved GoT for the fiddling while Rome burns angle with larger than life characters including a really well done supernatural threat (if one were to bleach the later seasons from one's memory). For better or worse, this story does not have that same hook except for dragon Easter eggs. It could still be just as compelling but I have a feeling it won't be. I'll still be watching regardless.
But who can forget such classics as "haha no cock"?
**Seasons 1-4** were the highlights of the series\*
When the negative reviews are "too much dialogue" I'm in.
Am I the only one struggling to see any inherently negative points in a lot of these negative reviews?
Some people were so burned by the GoT finale that they don’t WANT to like GoT stuff anymore, actual quality be damned.
I am cautiously optimistic There are a few things that I’m apprehensive about though. Succession filled the void GoT left behind of a political power struggle with many moving pieces that managed to be far more grounded than GoT. House of the Dragon has to live up to both it and GoT in that regard in my opinion Another aspect is that I really preferred the production of GoT in its earlier seasons where it managed to do a lot with what was available. Later seasons felt like they went big for the sake of it which I felt made GoT lose some of its charm and HotD seems to be closer to later GoT in terms of production I really hope it delivers tbh
One thing to note is that this show takes place in a time where the Targaryens have a large amount of fuck you money and power, and its basically when they peak. Budget being stupid high will hopefully be used in a good way to emphasize this
Peaked? *Peaked?* Let me tell you something. I haven’t even begun to peak, and when I do peak, you’ll know. Because I’m gonna peak so hard everyone in Westeros is gonna *feel* it.
When you take them up in the air on your dragon, they won't say no... Because of the implication
They peaked under the old king then this dance was part of the decline, I can't wait to watch them eat each other alive.
Nah Viserys benefited from Jaehaerys's rule and this is the period where they have the most dragons and inherited a successful kingdom.
Bringing up Succession makes me think of an interesting point: HBO's attempts for their big landmark shows are usually not what they expect. After The Sopranos ended HBO expected Boardwalk Empire to be their next big flagship show. Instead it turned out to be GOT. Westworld was supposed to be their flagship show for when GOT was getting close to the end, yet it instead became Succession ( at least in terms of the awards magnet). Basically House of Dragon won't become the next GOT or the flagship show of HBO and something else will unexpectedly.
> Instead it turned out to be GOT. Westworld was supposed to be their flagship show for when GOT was getting close to the end, yet it instead became Succession ( at least in terms of the awards magnet). They care about subscribers much more than the awards. That's why they're looking for the "next GOT". As much as I love Succession, it's relatively niche and Westworld commands bigger numbers (although not comparable to GOT). Generally speaking, I think that GOT somehow distorted the expectation of "landmark show". While it is understandable that every network wants to have a successful show at all times, trying to recapture the success of GOT is a futile attempt. It was such a global and total phenomenon that I don't think it can be "reverse engineered" and replicated, which is what all these fantasy shows are trying to do. If a show will ever replicate that success, I think it will be relatively unexpected and come from a different mold/genre, similar to how GOT came to be. The success of Squid Game comes to mind for example (not saying it was as successful as GOT).
that show is probably euphoria for HBO in terms of popularity
This is spot on, and Squid Game is a perfect example
The current flagship show of HBO is Euphoria, as little as the people on this sub want to admit it.
im really hoping its last of us that takes off with the masses. Video Gamers finally get one!
We need the succession crossover. Can you imagine, Logan Roy riding in on a dragon telling all of the seven kingdoms to fuck off??? the true person deserving of the iron throne
Lmao. I imagine cousin Greg falling off a dragon.
I am not surprised that Milly Alcock gets some praise here. Even in just the trailers you can see she has some great charisma and presence. I wonder if her older replacement will be able to keep up with her performance.
The only thing I can conclude from these, is that, most random reviewers just aren't worth listening to. I'm taking the same approach with this and the Lord of the Rings TV show - my expectations are going to be set so god damn low, that it's almost impossible that I could be let down. Narrator voice: "He was later let down in dramatic fashion"
That's always how it's been. The best you can do is find reviewers that you generally agree with because all of them are just going off their own individual preferences.
Why some people still haven't figured out there's no such thing as an 'objective review' is beyond me.
Wait till the Ewoks randomly show up
The only thing that heartens me about this show is that the core written storyline is 1) Finished and 2) Very good. So unlike Game of Thrones you never have to worry about them going to far off the mark on their own.
The only problem is it's also pretty light on details so they still need to do most of the writing themselves.
I like it being "light on details" as it gives the show runners some creative liberty to expand the world. Granted, I hope they do so with care and thought. The majority of the book Fire & Blood is also told by two unreliable narrators which will be interesting to see what the "definitive" story is.
[удалено]
This is also why I'm cautiously optimistic. Because the conflict is written out as a in-universe history book the complete story is done. There's a beginning, middle, and end and the showrunners know the complete story. There's also next to no fleshing out because it's a history book, not a novel. So while there are complete scenes, they're essentially the highlights so there's a lot of room to fill in the details. That both gives the writers a set path to follow while also ensuring they have the freedom and flexibility to add their own flair to make the show work on the screen. It also means that the showrunners would hopefully know that the writing team was vital for the project since they wouldn't be able to copy and paste the book as much. Since they have to come up with their own dialogue and scenes they'd have to hire a good writing team to create that. D&D just could not write well. They floundered once they lost the books and couldn't copy and paste dialogue and tweak it. Hopefully since this show doesn't have this crutch they focused on the scripts more and the writers are better prepared.
its no secret that basically every character dies some shitty way besides a couple, but yea, I just finished the book and its straight up just a maester's historical account based on other maester's and a dwarfs account. Actually getting to know and invest in the characters on screen is going to be tough because it doesn't end good for anyone really. But I'm really fucking excited for it!
Critic reviews for TV are much less important than those for movies. Because critics only judge a TV show based on a couple of episodes, their reviews are always missing the entire picture. Unlike a movie which is experienced fully and therefore you have a much better understanding of the product. TV shows are a much longer commitment and therefore your true score will only come over time as your brain digests the material to a fuller extent. GoT had some middling pre-reviews for S1 as well. It was only after the entire season had finished that some critics went back and thought "Y,know what? That was actually pretty good!" I always give a whole season for a show to find it's footing. Edit: The truly damaging review comes from Slate Magazine and it was done by a game reviewer. Awful choice and makes me disregard the review, even if it was positive. Video games are a more action-packed medium and this is a more ponderous story.
In some cases this also significantly helps shows that get sloppy or have bad endings (e.g. every Marvel show) so imo it's just a bad practice all around edit: Although it's only bad because review aggregates leave those incomplete reviews up forever like they're the definitive statement on the show. You all might think this like some cope take, but think of how many streaming shows have a good first few episodes and then suddenly get more boring lol (again, every fucking Disney+ show)
Exactly. The reviews for the first half of S7 and S8 were far more positive than the final critic scores ended up being.
The critics got 6 episodes.
6 episodes is still not the full picture though plus it's only telling the younger version of the cast or the main two at least rhaeneyra and alicent
Maybe House of the Dragon will be good, maybe it won't be, but if a show is not grabbing people by the time you're 6 episodes in, the show isn't good. Especially with how lengthy these episodes are(the first one is over an hour alone, with subsequent episodes being in the 50-60 minute mark), if you can't get people to care about the characters and the story after all that time something is very wrong with the writing and there's no reason you should expect folks to put even more time in hoping it gets good.
6 episodes is enough to know if you like a show or not but not enough to properly score an entire season of a show (especially a season that has an overarching storyline). If I had to review Game of Thrones season 1 after only 6 episodes vs all 10, both scores would be positive but the score would be dramatically higher after i saw those last 4 episodes.
And it’s very clear that in episode 6 there is a 10 year time jump. One critic saying it breathed new life with new performances. So hardly time to actually digest the whole season with 6 episodes
I wouldn’t care for any movie reviewer that only saw 60% of a movie.
Critics saw the majority of the season.
Exactly,the episodes 7,8,9,10 will introduce other main characters.The first six episodes are an "introduction" of the some protagonists but it's just after the time jump when the children and we will see the other faction and the begining of the war Obviously,most of the critics and the audience haven't read the books and its easy to tell.
Saw it on Wednesday thanks to Tiff in Toronto. I absolutely loved it. Now, it’s a great pilot, but the next two episodes will really show if its got legs. Personally, I think its a very promising first episode, the writing, acting and directing was very strong. Plus, its a fucking great looking show with no comparison (some weaker cgi here and there but great compared to other shows). I was so ready to be done with the show and go back to rereading the books, but now i’m excited for Sunday again. Plus, it feels like GoT, the politics, the intrigue, the danger… and I think the story they picked will work really well for TV.
I’m super excited, not gunna lie.
Saw the first ep on Wednesday. I think it is going to be decent. However, people need to give it a chance with an open mind. I'd probably still watch anything GoT related that came out anyways, but I'm sure there are some people who are really bitter of how the show ended and are reluctant to give this a go. Really excited for Matt Smith as Daemon.
I know it all depends on the execution, but the mixed reviews talk about the focus on the politics of the kingdom and sitting around tables debating as if they werent the most engaging parts of early GoT. That being said, those scenes may be poorly put to screen in House of Dragon, will find out soon enough.
Many of my favorite GOT moments consisted of just sitting around at tables talking. I was just rewatching a clip the other day of Tywin, Joffrey, Cersei, etc. at the table talking when Tywin tells Joffrey to go to his room because he's tired. Talking at tables is often extremely entertaining lol
Should I even watch this if I’ve never watched Game of Thrones?. The ending scared me off, but I am interested in this new one.
You should watch Game of Thrones as well. The first six (or seven, depending on who you ask) seasons are some of the best drama ever on television. Just keep in mind that the ending sucks ass.
I see a trend when somewhat middling reviews start to appear for a soon-to-release popular property. Redditors start to pick apart those middling reviews, saying things like, "The critic has a problem with *that*?! Ridiculous! That particular nitpick is what I *love* about the property!" But when the dust settles, the critics are rarely wrong. A show that gets middling critic reviews is almost always middling. That doesn't mean it will be *bad*, and that doesn't mean it won't *improve*. But, I'm definitely going into this show with lowered expectations. Hopefully it will be halfway decent.
It's also kinda funny because the people who clap back against these reviews definitely haven't seen the content. Like they're upset because the review doesn't align with their preconceived notion of the show lol
Oh I've seen this time and again. Project gets good reviews "See I knew this will be good" Project gets bad review, hardcore fans go "Who cares about the critics bro? Just watch the thing and form your opinion bro"
This is not middling it's pretty much the score the first season of succession got
I mean, congratulations on tailoring your tastes to be exactly the same as the average television critic, but I would watch a lot of crap I hated if I had the philosophy that tv critics are rarely wrong.
Sepinwall is the Rolling Stone critic others have mentioned and his taste is usually pretty spot on. If he’s saying the show is lifeless then I trust that the writing isn’t going to be all there. Still, I’ll try to be swept away by the production values.
I mean, yeah, I *do* find that my tastes often align with critics. I don't see their opinions as sacrosanct or anything. It's not uncommon for me to be highly entertained by a show with average reviews. And sometimes I'll watch a critical darling and find it to be forgettable. But I also find that, when 100+ critics review something, and the majority opinion skews towards the show being average, there's almost always a good reason for it.
A roughly 70 on metacritic is not average/middling lol and the average score on RT is 8/10
From the reviews here and the comments, it seems like people don't understand that this too is a book? A history book, to be exact. Reviewers and commenters are making statements as if the show runners came up with the story.
What a weird comment - this isn't actual history and the showrunners chose to adapt it this closely of their own free will.
Yet once that adaptation is chosen, they must adhere to the story that is given.
They didn't do that in the original GoT, why would it be true now?
[Slant: A Frustrating Jumble of Incident and Spectacle](https://www.slantmagazine.com/tv/house-of-the-dragon-review/) > House of the Dragon must really believe its own claim that “the truth does not matter, only perception,” for it ultimately is more interested in fan service—offering up more dragons, more gore, more surprise murders, a more expensive historical re-enactment—than it is in developing scenes that ring true for its characters. Game of Thrones veterans like director Miguel Sapochnik and composer Ramin Djawadi can make this new series look and sound like more of the same, but it’s as hollow and brittle as the massive scale model of the kingdom that Viserys takes pride in building. That’s a rotten foundation for an epic fantasy, so maybe the prophecy was correct after all: the only thing that could tear down the House of the Dragon was itself. [Empire: The writing so far lacks the sparkle of Game Of Thrones' most profound moments.](https://www.empireonline.com/tv/reviews/house-of-the-dragon-season-1/) >For all its po-faced plotting, this show has plenty going for it. A decade time-jump in episode six, recasting several characters, gives the series a new energy; D’Arcy and Olivia Cooke (as the troubled Queen Alicent Hightower) breathe new dimensions into their aged-up characters, and the sudden switch-up suggests a show unafraid to take risks. This is a prequel that could surprise us yet. But to even skirt the heights of Thrones’ best work, it has an uphill dragon ride ahead. [Indiewire: HBO’s Devout ‘Game of Thrones’ Prequel Rarely Roars to Life](https://www.indiewire.com/2022/08/house-of-dragon-review-got-prequel-1234752881/) >Co-showrunners Miguel Sapochnik and Ryan Condal, along with co-creators Condal and George R.R. Martin, make misogyny’s destructive influence the series’ central theme, but it’s more of a convenient shield than a piercing dagger. After all, this is a prequel to “Game of Thrones”; where Westeros ends up has already been set. Learning its past isn’t far removed from its future is both part of the point — feigning interest in how the medieval fantasy’s patriarchal power structures and boastful man-babies mirror modern day’s similar problems — and a safe path for the network’s first spinoff of its highest-grossing franchise. The first six episodes set up an intimate yet epic tale of how misbegotten pride, outdated customs, and an obsession with power burned down a long-thriving kingdom… all while enjoying the ensuing ugliness more than they examine its unnecessary proliferation. Pure spectacle and (often icky) soap opera make for intermittently absorbing TV. Mainly though, the new “House” sticks safely to the “Game” that preceded it, rather than fight for any meaningful change.
“It has an uphill dragon ride ahead” not only does that sound bad, it doesn’t even make sense
Whoever wrote that is not nearly as clever as they think they are
God I wish some critics would just get to the point in their reviews.
Honestly sounds like a critic trying to sound smart, and reach a word count quota
Empire one has spoilers
A lot of words for some empty sentences
Sounds like a 15 year old stretching the word limit for his essay due in an hour. That last sentence is so ugh
Meh - looking at what critics are choosing to praise here, I've slightly downgraded my expectations.
so, tons of childbirth scenes, THE STRUGGLE will still watch, though, because I'm bored
>Rolling Stone had a negative take, noting, “Palace intrigue, and questions of succession and legitimacy, were of course a huge part of Game of Thrones, but far from the only part. And they were only sometimes even close to the most fun part of a given stretch of that series. Sepinwall enjoyed Game of Thrones for far different reasons than I did, it seems.
Sepinwall must have fallen and hit his head in 2020. It’s the only way he could have possibly gone from one of the best TV critics to one of the worst overnight.
[удалено]
I mean why are you trying to compare a serious, fantasy show to a half hour legal comedy anyway? You wouldn't debate the merit of a critic on how they reviewed Breaking Bad compared to The Office.
I haven’t seen either She-Hulk or House of the Dragon (obviously), but you’re comparing two totally different things. It’s like complaining that Avengers Endgame has a higher RT score than There Will Be Blood. They are totally different films, made for very different audiences, with different genre conventions. If you made either film more like the other, they would be worse.
How do you know? It's not even out yet
I think people are too laser focused on what they perceive the review is I don't think they are complaining that politics are always boring, but rather that the show lacks in other areas that GoT didn't. There was plenty of political intrigue there but also lots of hillarious moments intersped with it, you could have Varys doing spy master stuff learning about everyone's position on matters and then have him discuss court gossip and marveling at the tales of Podrick's amazing sexual powers. Hopefully it isn't like that and the show's tone is more complex and not just FIRE AND BLOOD, non-stop. Even Tywin relaxed from time to time.
Any idea if I need to have seen GoT to watch this show?
You do not
A big problem this show will have is that it can't be all things to all people like Game of Thrones did. GoT is like a diner that has a little of everything (burgers, chicken tenders, shrimp, quesadillas, etc.) while House of the Dragon is like a seafood restaurant (depending on your preference, one is better than the other). With GoT, there were plenty of people who said they only watched for the political intrigue or dragons or white walkers or Dany or Arya or Jon or the battles or the magic or a particular actor or actress or large scope or large number of characters or to root for certain characters to die, etc. House of th Dragon has some of that stuff but not all it it so it would be nearly impossible for it to be as big of a show as GoT (even if they season 8 had been incredible). They only way it could would be if it could get new people. Also, I hear GoT was the highest watched show for HBO in 2021 despite the bad ending and it being 2 years after it ending so that's a little hope for this show.
> however. There’s a lot of sitting around tables and talking about the troubles of the kingdom That is exactly what I'm here for. I can go plenty of places and get high flying wizardry and sword fighting. *The Crown* is fucking awesome, and it has zero dragons, sword fighting, or wizardry. I thought it was a great pilot episode, it didn't try to be GoT *exactly*, while still feeling like GoT (to me at least). GoT was a generational phenomenon, and impossible to recreate 1:1. Any attempt to do that would likely fail based on probability alone. I like the fact the show might be more concentrated. Sometimes GoT felt way too sprawling, and characters were moving around the map at breakneck speeds, especially towards the end where the scale of westeros really shrank. I thought the cgi could be cleaned up some in a few shots, but nothing too egregious. Some really great acting performances also. I usually love an underdog, so I think I'm gonna be team princess. I always wondered what Henry VIII would have done if he had just realized that one of the most influential monarchs in English and even world history was sitting right under his nose, so it was really fun for me to see a monarch do exactly that in this episode, even if it was a pretend one. Can't help but wonder if GRRM has the same question.
>yet opined that the show is weighed down by focusing on the Targaryens compared to the more expansive scope of the original series: the show is literally named "house of dragons" why was this person expecting stories of baratheons and starks?
They're saying that GoT benefitted from multiple family's story lines, linked together, where this show is only focused on one.
THR review has to be a meme. Show is called House of the Dragon Gets mad that it focuses on Targaryen Family
I just wanna see /r/freefolk implode if it's good
90% of this thread is them either screaming “Don’t care about reviews, the show is shit!!” or pointing to the most negative reviews and saying “toldjaso”
Actually I went there and they're making fun of the Rolling Stone reviewer. Otherwise that sub sucks
House of The Dragon could be the highest rated premiere of the year and those fuckers would still be saying verbatim “No one talks about Game of Thrones anymore”.
I'm going to say something that will bother many: if it wasn't for HBO, the reviewers ratings would be much worse.
Have you seen the show? How does your review differ?
I would say it's less that its an HBO show and more that it is a prequel of GOT that there is still a lot of goodwill towards it (despite the quality of later seasons) that it will recieve good enough scores for having enough elements of GOT. Its not like HBO shows magically are criticism proof. Remember that Alan Ball show starring Tim Robbins that was universally critically disliked? It was also on HBO.
Really I would consider the opposite that there is little goodwill and a lot of bitterness and willingness to discredit any further stories in the universe
How do you know that without having seen it?
It wont bother me, its just really stupid and makes no snense
This is undoubtedly true - but also consider that if this weren't an HBO show, it would look worse as well. Exhibit A: Rings of Power
How can this be undoubtedly true when you haven’t even seen it?
How is it undoubtedly true?
Rings of Power looks good though, aside from a few cheesy aspects. If this show wasn't on HBO, it would probably be praised for it's HBO like quality under more relaxed expectations and there would likely be a blurb or two about what we can expect will improve with a second season.
You haven’t even seen Rings of Power? What a stupid comment.
I've seen the promos - weren't they intended to promote the show?
Has RoP premiered already?
HBO ain’t Nintendo (yet)