House of The Dragon Check-In: Reasons for Optimism and Pessimism
Greg Ehrhardt, OnScreen Blog Columnist
Please note: I’ve never read the books that Game of Thrones or House of the Dragon are based on. I’m evaluating this as a TV show, and a TV show only.
This was written after watching the 4th episode of Season 1 of House of the Dragon
Patience.
I watch that Aaron Rodgers clip preaching patience (updated annually after they fail to show up offensively in their opening game) sometimes when I’m getting ansty during the first few episodes of a new show. In the old days, pre-streaming, we had far fewer options in television options, so when a new show wasn’t landing with us, we didn’t have much for alternatives, so we stuck it out and hoped for the best.
Not these days, not with approximately 1,349 streaming options available, all of which is producing original content.
With this much competition, the tolerance for middling shows is lower than a 21 year old’s tolerance for tequila on their first night of drinking. If it doesn’t stick, in the first two episodes, we’re out.
(I know there’s many of you with the patience of 1,000 saints. I’m describing people like me who demand instant satisfaction 100% of the time, which represents about 99% of twitter. Moving on)
This brings me to HBO’s House Of The Dragon, the hotly anticipated show which rightfully dives into arguably the most important family Of Westeros history, the Targaryens.
Even though Game of Thrones ended sloppily (to say the least), I was excited to spend more time in Westeros. Why? Because Westeros established its cred as a world where complex characters live, where anything can happen, and the stakes are usually significant (even when we aren’t dealing with the iron throne).
Has four episodes of House of The Dragon solidified this cred? It’s too early to make a sweeping statement. There are though encouraging and discouraging signs.
Encouraging: It looks and feels very similar to the Westeros we knew in Game of Thrones. There’s one key difference: its not as well lit as Game of Thrones, which simply may just be a function of being 100+ years earlier and their fire lighting technology is not up to speed yet. I’m sure there’s some thematic symbolism going on as well, but well, as I told you in the beginning, I never read the books, and I watch this show for reasons other than to relive my AP English Literature classes.
Encouraging: The battle scene in episode 3 looked superb, and they haven’t lost their flair for the beautiful aesthetics (like the sunrise shot when Rhaenyra confronted Daemon with their dragons on the bridge). With GOT director Miguel Sapochnick as show-runner, they are capitalizing on his strengths in visuals and battle flair, and with upcoming dragon battles, we can be certain they will be spectacular and must-see TV
Discouraging: The characters are really bland so far, with the exception of Daemon. When you do a prequel, and the outcome is pre-determined, you really need strong new characters to prop up the show. Better Call Saul, a beloved prequel to a beloved Breaking Bad, had its own brand fanatics because it unveiled multiple rich and dynamic characters who were captivating on screen.
Game of Thrones hooked me in mainly because the casting was dynamite and the characters were so much fun to watch, even if they were just conversating on screen about vanilla topics. For example, Littlefinger and Olenna Tyrell could be sharing a scene talking about growing Brussel sprouts, and it would hold your attention.
I’m not getting those same tingles watching most of the cast of House of the Dragon so far. This stands out particularly in watching the small council scenes. In Game of Thrones, we had colorful characters inhabiting the seats, where it was exciting to see what would unfold, even when discussing banal measures like fundraising. In House of The Dragon, no one in particular is standing out, and so far, they are all kind of blending in together that its hard to remember who is who.
Otto Hightower as the hand has promise, but it is hard not to think of Tywin Lannister when watching him, and so far, he is not as interesting a character, even though Rhys Ifan is a wonderful actor who can do all the things Charles Dance could do as Tywin.
Otto’s daughter, Alicent, also looks to be a crucial character, and while her character may supposed to be rather muted and internal, it doesn’t make for great television when the other supporting characters aren’t standing out either.
If these characters don’t grow and become dynamic in their own right, and don’t exist merely as pawns for the Targaryens to squabble for the throne, this show won’t hold audiences attention for multiple seasons. Daemon, Rhaenyra, and Viseryis, are not enough, as good as they are.
So that’s where I’m at. Am I still interested in the show? Absolutely. I’m glad they’re focusing on iron throne inheritance battles.
But I’m watching very closely how the non-Targaryen characters develop. Recapturing the magic Game of Thrones had in characters like Littlefinger, Lord Varys, the Lannisters, Lady Olenna, etc is unlikely. But they should stand out in their own right. The show depends on them.
With all that said, we’re only 4 episodes in. Game of Thrones was a very different show in its first season than it ended up being, so no reason to not expect the same for House of The Dragon.
P-A-T-I-E-N-C-E.
You can follow my thoughts on movies and TV on twitter.com/onscreenblog