--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
--- Double Post Merged, ---
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
--- Double Post Merged, ---
I just hate how the discourse surrounding these type of situations in casting is dominated by racists and not a discussion of plot implications. Because those exist regardless of who is cast. I only care about it being handled in a cogent way that does the story justice. As long as the specifics with Rhaenyra's children are handled properly, then I don't think a legitimate gripe can really exist.Love the video. I hate how each time a Black casting is made somehow gives everybody the right to talk shit.
Just f**cking enjoy the show or critic it for the right reasons.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Not going to go into detail but the points you bring up are addressed at some point in the written material, and should be in the show. But good analysis either way. Just keep in mind that this is the first bit of the first season of this show and they're things that would likely come before the pot eventually boils over, so to speak.saw the episode.... maybe ok in general? but in the context of how you'd expect targaryens from 200 years before the show to behave....
when it came to the succession discussion it felt like the show ignored the actual obvious outcomes:
1.- A king loosing a queen that struggled producing kids simply opens up the possibility of bringing in a more fertile queen. Sure, the king isn't healthy presumably but a quick marriage aimed to producing an heir should at least be on the table.
2.- They are targaryens. Gross targaryens even... The king has a daughter and a brother. This seems like the natural almost dead end for the discussion outside of the king getting a new consort.
3.- The prophecy bit..... really? I suppose it's not unfeasible that they would have dreamed this even in the books (maybe they did? I haven't read the targaryen book) but the way the series presented this seems... cheap?
Not going to go into detail but the points you bring up are addressed at some point in the written material, and should be in the show. But good analysis either way. Just keep in mind that this is the first bit of the first season of this show and they're things that would likely come before the pot eventually boils over, so to speak.
Regarding the prophecy, I will say that GRRM has alluded to this in hints and bits at times. I've seen some people recoil at it, but I would say given what I've examined it mostly fits in the canon and likely comes from him, given his involvement in the show. It's not really something you can chalk up hackneyed jokes about his writing pace either as I don't think it'll be relevant in the future story really. But it does explain several things in the histories, especially regarding Aegon the Conqueror's behavior at times, as well as Rhaegar's.
Dunno, I can't help but shiver remembering season 8.... It's clear they can't cram every bit of context into a single episode but the bits they chose to keep seem odd. I suppose their choices might make more sense in future episodes though that doesn't exactly excuse the characters coming out as borderline irrational.
I suppose my main issue here is the execution mostly? It's almost trying too hard to make the targaryen as being... burdened by responsibility rather than being the same as everyone else (except slightly more magical) but with dragons. I mean:
King: What do you think targaryens are?
Princess: pfft, we are just dudes with big lizards.
king: Ah yes, yes, but there's also an ancient prophecy our ancestors came where we kinda have to rule most of everything to save the world.
Princess: Can't that just be the mad ramblings of our grandpa-uncle-cousin?
King: It could, sure, but the audience has either seen the original series OR even read the books. So it's not.
Princess: So this bare minimum of awareness I have....
King: Mostly unnecessary, yes. As long as we have dragons of course.
With this new revelation of sorts, I think the point will be this greater purpose may or may not exist, but Rhaenyra will likely forget about it mostly for her own sake. This greater purpose might partially motivate her to do what she does and be who she was, but it won't be because she's a righteous person that cares about mankind. That will hopefully break the illusion for all of the Dany stans that are hoping to transfer their worship to someone else - Rhaenyra is not a revolutionary.
It's clear given Rhaegar's behavior that this prophecy was lost to history at some point, as him discovering it is the clear reason why Barristan said he randomly said one day "it seems I must become a warrior". It's already a bit questionable as to how much Maegor knew or whether he told anyone given his own nature. So it's likely that this prophecy will still be treated like a lunatic's ramblings by some, put down in a secret scroll and treated like nonsense at some point. That and the reality that whatever we might consider as "proof" of this prophecy being real, the events of the War for the Dawn will take place 200 years later than this. And given the way prophecy works in this world, it's not some be-all-end-all thing that Targaryens get correct just because they're Targaryens.
Maybe I am misremembering but wasn't rheagar aware of the other prophecies concerning the massive war with the fate of mankind at stake? I had to google a bit but he speaks of the prince that was promised. I suppose its possible he put the two prophecies together... Or that he took his family's prophecy seriosly when he found the other presumably independent but clearly connected prophecies.
But yeah, otherwise the actual prophecy can't actually matter to her that much. I suppose I will get to reading the targaryen book now.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Hmmm, not exactly? During the main story there are constant references to events dating back even thousands of years. Most folk in the story are history nerds for some reason (looked through their own lenses of course). History in the story provides context and continually shapes how characters behave. And what is clear from what little we learn of that much larger history is that the "game of thrones" has been going strong for thousands of years. It's unfair to characterize those events as filler, specially if grrm had anything to do with coming up with them.Matt Smith's accent could have been more posh for his role.
I don't understand why they're focusing on this timeline.
It seems as if nothing relevant happens.
It will never amount to more than a series of filler material?
Hmmm, not exactly? During the main story there are constant references to events dating back even thousands of years. Most folk in the story are history nerds for some reason (looked through their own lenses of course). History in the story provides context and continually shapes how characters behave. And what is clear from what little we learn of that much larger history is that the "game of thrones" has been going strong for thousands of years. It's unfair to characterize those events as filler, specially if grrm had anything to do with coming up with them.
What does this comment even mean...? Are you familiar with what the series is based on or?Matt Smith's accent could have been more posh for his role.
I don't understand why they're focusing on this timeline.
It seems as if nothing relevant happens.
It will never amount to more than a series of filler material?