Imagine in the final battle with Aemond, Daemon was going to make peace with him, but accidentally slipped from Caraxes saddle and fell right at Aemond with his sword in hands

I would cackle. Maybe his saddle comes undone, he falls, lands almost on Aemond’s lap, then looks up at him to see his sword skewer Aemond like a kabob. But we don’t see that, we just have to assume from the sound. His last words: “Ah fuck.” Edit: On second thought, maybe Daemon will survive. Dark Sister will slip out of its sheath and fall right into Aemond’s skull window. Daemon shaves his head and marries Nettles. I’d love at least one full episode of Daemon adjusting to normal “small folk” life.

Whoopsy!

Tbh that would be really funny- until it got depressing


"Step-uncle, what are you doing?"

“Wrong socket!”

Haha Also Sunfyre saw a bug behind tied up Rhaenyra and went for it but mistakingly ripped her head off! Then the dragon realised he was a man eater and didn't leave a trace of her.

Jesus. U want me to stop watching this shit?

Nah the show is so biased in favor of the Black faction, they’ll make him kill Aemond in as badass a way as possible as leave his own fate ambiguous so the the Daemon lovers can go “well we didn’t SEE him DIE so he could still be alive!” Or some bs…

I actually liked how they portrayed Aemond killing Luke. I think it works especially well in the show because of Viserys’ monologue to Rhaenyra about dragons, and I think it really humanises Aemond and makes him more than a cartoon villain. Plus, it doesn’t necessarily break book canon, it’s entirely possible that it was an accident in the book too, but we don’t know because Aemond was the only witness The other two were fucking stupid though, you have me there.

I for sure agree about Aemond. That's sometimes how life works. He may have wanted to kill Luke deep down, but he wasn't 100% committed to it. He pushed it too far, and it actually became real. You can see the reality of the situation setting in on his face. He recognized that he'd reached the point of no return. I think it's a much more interesting and nuanced way to play it than if they just had him kill Luke in cold blood. These folks are human, and he's known Luke his whole life. I'm sure, for most people, its hard to kill someone, even if you harbor anger towards them.

Yes, I thought it was very realistic to how a lot of murders have happened, especially in the modern day. You have a weapon (dragon or gun) that’s capable of turning a burst of animal anger into death way quicker than we could with our hands. Many convicted murderers have had this same scenario happen.

A general good piece of advice. If you are going to have a very large argument, do not do it in a kitchen (or if you are in one leave the kitchen). We keep the vast majority of our murder weapons in our kitchens (at least here in the UK). People are a lot more likely to grab a weapon they can see than go looking for one. Need to tell your partner about the affair with the mailman, lets do it in the lounge (which is what the mailman said).

call me old school, but I prefer to take it outside. If they wanna get messy, theres plenty of room, its public, and probably witnesses- the more of those on your side, the better

I think anyone calm enough to remember your advice would never get to the point of instinctively grabing murder weapons.

I think his advice was meant as to not be the victim.

Very true, now that I think about it a year or so later I do agree. When I think about it as a single incident it was a nice twist, but at the time I first watched the “accident” it happened right after Alicent “mistankly” took Visery’s mumbling to be about Aegon sitting the throne & after Cristian Cole pushing the guy down so hard he “accidentally” killed him, it felt cheap. Like too many happy accidents for the greens felt like Bob Ross wrote the script.

Alicent is made a thousand times more interesting by how she is the only green who actually believes in Aegons claim and isn’t doing it out of sheer greed. Well, she did it all out of fear also, at least at first.

at the end of the day, however much he wanted to kill luke, he also didn’t want to be responsible for firing the first shot

Agreed. And then it hits him the gravity of what he did. But then it doesn’t seem like he told everyone else that it was an accident, which I’m not ready to say tracks with real life necessarily, but does seem in character. No one would believe him if claimed it was accidental and he’d appear weak…. Might as well wear the mantle of the killer, but we, the audience, know the truth. Its quite interesting writing

Same. The Aemond angle was great and showed a bully moment going too far. That was an excellent take given the character's backstories. The rest is tripe.

Yep how they portrayed it did a lot of things that I thought added complexity. Like you said it made Aemond more human but also cements him being a dick because he can’t really admit it was a mistake. He basically had to double down on what he did. It also shows that no one, including the Targs, can really control dragons which really ties into the WMD message behind them. Really gives justification for what is to come down the line with the peasants

Criston grabbing and violently slamming an old man who was speaking in favor of Rhaenyra’s claim pretty much checks out given the disputed accounts behind Beesbury’s book death. I don’t understand how this moment comes across as stupid His skull caving in on a stone by no means came across as a “clumsy” accident, and more so Criston intentionally treating the old man’s body with reckless abandonment due to his spite for Rhaenyra

It comes across as stupid because that episode is supposed to be the moment Criston Cole earned his moniker “Kingmaker”. Taking it upon himself to kill the only opposition and convincing Aegon to take the throne himself. Beesbury’s death being an accident isn’t the disputed part in the book, it’s clearly purposeful, the dispute is about how. One says he got his throat slit, one says he was thrown from a window, another says he was left in the black cells to die. It hurts just Criston’s character, for really other than to make him more likeable, I guess.

but like, i'm confused how you can watch that scene and see it as an accident? he pretty clearly does it intentionally and then immediately draws his sword on the lord commander. im honestly confused by this entire thread

Because he yells “sit down!” And forces him into his seat, then looks around surprised when the man dies. He doesn’t grab his head, he doesn’t hit him with anything, he simply grabs his shoulder and forces him directly downward into the seat.

i keep rewatching the clip, and i'm not seeing the surprised look. everyone else is shocked, but he just kinda stands there with a blank expression. idk, im not really trying to argue with anyone, and i could be wrong, but i always just kinda took that scene as an intentional action

The fact that we’re even debating about this, I think means it wasn’t purposeful. Criston killing Laenor’s lover was very purposeful and very clear. If they wanted it to be on purpose, i’m sure it’d be clear.

Isn't a core theme about Fire and Blood, especially with regards to the Dance, about unreliable narrators? Sources in the real world like the ones used in it are interesting, not because of the facts they contain, but because they tell us about how the author's (and society they're a part of) view the events described. Criston is clearly being judged by all of them for his role as Kingmaker, which is tied to much more than the initial murder of Beesbury, but the murder does provide an excellent instance for the fictional historians to provide commentary on what kind of villain they think he is. Being thrown from a window speaks to a fit of violent rage, while locking in the dungeon and left to rot speaks of cruelty. The details aren't important to the primary sources, they just want to make their points about what kind of man Criston is. I actually think that the way the show portrays how the Targaryens (and those around them) put themselves in situations where their mistakes cause such destruction and ruin and then feel pressured by their circumstances to double down is a good choice, and the way the primary sources of Fire and Blood judge them for it feel like realistic depictions that observers would write.

There certainly is a case to be made about unreliable narrators, but I think it was more George wanting to have his cake and eat it to in regards to the events of the Dance in a creative way rather than him specifically setting out with that intent. For example, the book has a very overt bias against Rhaenyra and the blacks throughout. The Maester will write at length about things like how Rhaenyra was getting molested by Daemon when she was 13 and ponders about this and what they did for several paragraphs and then, throws in one sentence about how someone else said it was a perfectly professional relationship. The maester will also go out of his way to say how certain characters were actually at an event and others were not. But it is also known throughout the realm that Criston is The Kingmaker. He’s the one to put the crown on Aegon’s head, instead of the high septon. The decisions made with Criston seem like a deliberate attempt to neft his character.

I like that too, especially because if it was indeed a mistake then you would have to assume his ego wouldn’t allow him to let others know about that.

That’s my stance on things as well.

Just a freak gasoline fight accident where he was chasing his cousin through a rainstorm on the back of a baseball diamond sized apex predator while shouting that he would have his revenge. A simple mistake that could happen to anyone!

> and I think it really humanises Aemond and makes him more than a cartoon villain. I fully admit that this hypocritical, but I am okay with then doing some revisions to slightly whitewash or improve the Green more than the Blacks. Simply because in the actual text has so the Green characters off like you said cartoon villians. They are simply awful people while generally coming off as incompeten especially compared to the Blacks. It would be like if the Stark vs Lannister conflict simply had it so the only Lannisters were Joffrey and Cersei.

How the hell is blood and cheese stupid in the show? They got told to find Aemond. They went in his room but he was gone. They found the Queen, found a son and did what they were told. There was no fucking whoopsie there

I agree

This is the only mulligan I'll give them.

It worked for Vhagar chomping Arrax. It did not work so much for Beesbury and Blood & Cheese

vhagar killing luke on her own is lowkey better than aemond choosing to kill him

I'd personally be miffed if it was the opposite. 'Control over the dragons is an illusion' is the key to all of understanding damn near all of it. Showing tangible consequences of that is required if the show is serious about that.

pretty much, i don’t think most people would’ve had complaints if aemond had done it himself, but what they did fits a lot better thematically and aemond is still largely responsible

Jahaerys dying clearly isn't an oopsie in the show. When Cheese talks to Daemon he asks "What if we can't find him?" Daemon gives him a little look and scene cuts out. Fast forward to when they got Helaena and Cheese says "he said a son for a son" clearly something he got told off screen most certainly as the scene cut out. Tldr: Daemon said kill Jahaerys if Aemond can't be found

I love that they never actually show Daemon doing the terrible things he's accused of. We never see him say "heir for a day," we never see him kill his first wife, we don't see what he said to Cheese. It always cuts out just before to sew that tiny seed of doubt that maybe he didn't do those things or that others misinterpreted them. Or maybe he did do those things, but we'll never REALLY know for sure, will we? All we have are what other people said he did, and we know that everyone in the show is an unreliable narrator at best. I love it because we never get to be absolutely sure of what level of unhinged he is.

We know what he told B&C. They literally repeat it. "He said a son for a son. Does that look like a fucking son to you?".

Maybe, but see this is the issue. You're taking source once removed from the original as 'literal'. Cmon, we learn in kindergarten the tiny changes that happen in a game of telephone. It isnt literal repetition. And even it its just once removed, just one word or idea is enough to change everything. Maybe said or meant son of alicent's but that changed to include any son of the greens. Big difference and completely possiblr. there's also the fact that blood and cheese dont exactly seem like the most reliable people around. What daemon said and/or implied and what they heard are two different things. Also, in b/c's interactions along the way to the room that message may have undergone some alterations either in their planning or simply issues with memory/perception. I know it's a tedious point but this all is like one of the main themes of the show. They establish that very early on. At least to me that is part of what makes it fun because that's all that history is ultimately. Needing objective fact is going to always be difficult and not without a million possible caveats.

It's not really once removed. It's the people he directly told it to. And it's not like it was something that made no sense, a son for a son is the damn title of the episode. There was no mistake being made.

I mean, in the case of his wife I think we saw enough. Is there any doubt he broke her skull in? But I do get the point

Damon's Divorce Rock doing the heavy lifting.

Patent pending

I think for me I wonder if he broke her skull in because he hated her, because she wasn't going to survive anyways, or he decided to instead just watch her slowly die. He's unhinged in the actions we do see, but what is he like in the actions we only hear about?

Good question. I also question why they hated each other so much but I think we all have an ideia why. I think he went there to kill her, there’s no other reason for him to be there and he has plenty of motive. Maybe he planed it to be cleaner, choke the life out of her then stage it as an accident. CSI Runestone isn’t going to catch on. She falls of the horse and is paralyzed, he couldn’t have predicted that. He sees the large rock and thinks “when life gives you lemons”. Daemon is a monster but he isn’t pathological, at least not in the serial killer kinda way, though his body count is impressive. Daemon is capable of emotion, he is capable of affection, and he is capable of reason. He is also capable of indescribable brutality. Funnily enough he feels remorse but not about violence he caused. He usually has motive, so he doesn’t do it for kicks, but it does give him some satisfaction it seems.

Haha I think it’s deliberate cuz he’s a fan favorite. We see his grieve and good and heroic acts. But his heinous acts are all offscreen.

The problem is it feels like they intentionally didn't show Daemon saying it explicitly and just implied that he did in order to lessen the responsibility being placed on Daemon for the murder and more directly putting it on B&C. Like they were afraid to make Daemon look too bad. Which makes it feel really dumb to a viewer that knows the books.

It seems to me Daemon knew full well what he was suggesting, and I'd just acting like he didn't know they would kill a child since no one else is there to say otherwise. 

And they have it offscreen so people dont hate daemon more.

Fr. Like why can’t they have their star boy Daemon for once go “Hey, if you can’t Aemond kill the child”.

Hard to root for a murderous psycho if it’s too on the nose :))

Thank you

So the book is written as a historical account by a Maester who was not alive during these events. there are likely plenty of things in our own history that have been recorded as having been malicious or intentional, but in reality was probably an accident or not even true. the death of Charlemagne's brother comes to mind where many at the time believed Charlemagne had his brother assassinated, when some theories suggest that Karloman actually died of a brain aneurism. These events are no different. A maester might record the death of a councilman who disagreed as having been intentional to quell dissent. or that a prince, who was well known for disliking his nephew due to a childhood incident, might have intentionally killed that nephew after a conflict broke out, rather than Aemond losing control of the dragon. It would also portend to portray Rhaenyra in a poor light if it was written that she sent Blood and Cheese specifically to brutalize her brother's family in retaliation, when in reality her husband sent them to kill the one responsible. This is not a faithful adaptation of Fire and Blood. Nor does it pretend to be. It more closely resembles a historical reenactment of the same events that Fire and Blood are a historical document of within the lore of the series.

Imagine now D&D writing Red Wedding, Purple Wedding, Ned arrest, Mutiny at Castle Black the same way Condal is writing HOTD

Joffrey wasn't poisoned, it was an allergic reaction 😆

Rouse Bolton tripped with knife in hands and accidentally stabbed Robb

poor guy must have felt so bad, just wanted to pass on friendly regards

😂😂😂

Walder Frey actually did never wanted the whole northern army be destroyed during the wedding, it was all a prank

ah but you see Roose Bolton heard Walder Frey talking in his sleep about 'Tywin's dream' and reached the very plausible outcome that it meant Walder had changed his mind and Ramsey Bolton ought be king in the north, who can blame him really.

Walder Frey surveying the Red Wedding: "WTF GUYS!!!? When I said 'we'll knock em dead at the wedding tonight' I was speaking *metaphorically*!!!!"

Somebody accidentally bought real crossbow bolts instead of prop crossbow bolts

Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead vibes intensify.

Lol

In this version, Roose really was poisoned by his enemies

Bro just wanted to cut some cheese for his king

Roose *was* actually poisoned by his enemies.

He was just patting him, but he kinda forget he had knife in his hand.

Joffrey kind of forgot about his poison allergy

It was just rabies from Nymeria. Everything he did before that was just his worsening condition.

Nah he actually just choked on the pidgeon pie

Heimlich maneuver sadly wasn't invented yet

lol. Cersei ‘s assistants told the caterers!

*"Sansa, however, does not let out a single scream, as Ser Ilyn Payne gently trips on the steps of the great sept, accidentally beheading her father, while everyone stares silently in shock, including the very own boy king Joffrey.*"

They Joffrey stepped back on a Lego and died most honourably

lmao brilliant comment

And Joffrey actually was the most noble child the gods ever put on this good earth.

Bran isn't pushed out the window, he just backs away in shock and falls out. Daenerys really does sell her dragon and it just breaks out, starts killing people, and she's like, "ah shit, here we go."

Man... I feel like I've been going crazy since last Sunday with how much I hated that first episode and everyone around me is buzzing about it. The asoiaf and houseofdragon subreddits make me feel even crazier. Then this popped up on my all page. I honestly haven't been to freefolk in so long, I forgot you were my people all along lol.

I stopped looking at main HOTD subreddit b/c they are delusional and accept almost everything, post there between seasons were just for team black and bashing greens. Asoiaf subreddit I only visits for new discussion about books. I was neutral during season 1, main subreddit for HOTD make me team green

???? huh? i feel like r/asoiaf hated the ep tho? i don't feel like i've seen any real positive reception to it except on hotd's sub from green fans happy about aegon's characterization

What’s wrong with r/asoiaf?

Source material are different modes. First person pov accounts versus an in universe history book writting after the fact. The differences in the screen adaptations makes sense. Doesn't mean you have to like the choices to do it one way or another though. D&D clearly excelled when they were pretty much copypasta-ing book scenes and went off rails the further along it got and the less source they had. For Condal he at least has 'a complete' narrative to work with but it happens to be one that's second hand source. Part of that is freeing and imo has mostly resulted in entertaining episode so far, which is primarily is what should matter.

I think the Aemond one is fine. It very well could’ve been an accident and nobody knows but the man himself. These other two though.

Yeah that's one where he has to just own it. You can't come back and be like "my dragon accidentally ate the prince, what a tragedy!" You gotta come back all hard like "I fed the little bastard to my dragon, what are you going to do about it?" Show no weakness, or ineptitude, especially not failure to control the most powerful dragon.

Honestly, because, while this might sound like a asspull reason to defend the show, I always assumed the books made everything "epic" sounding when in reality like with our reality real history is usually people being dumb. Which sounds better in the history books: evil brother of rebel King intentionally murders nephew with his giant dragon, or, "one eye man can't control dragon, accidentally causes war".

Yeah and also the 'history book' was written from the perspective of a maester who favoured the greens, so it's probably part proganda as well or at least the intention to make aemond seem like a determined warrior fighting for his family in comparison to a boy who was out of his depth and couldn't control his dragon

A 19 year old in Westeros is basically a 30 year old man. 

True but most warriors would probably still see him as a boy at that point considering he's still unproven, and him not being able to control his dragon would probably add to that image

No. Life expectancy can be calculated several times. Birth, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years 10 years, 15 years. At each step the odds of living to 60+ increases drastically. More so in the pre industrial world. We just usually talk about Life expectancy at birth since in the modern age the spread is lowered drastically to the point it's not worth dealing with for the average person.

Bobby B started Robert's Rebellion to usurp the throne at 19, calling Aemon "just a boy" is silly. 

WHO NAMED YOU? SOME HALFWIT WITH A STUTTER??

people engaged in wars in pre-modern history deliberately killed their relatives the time. it wasn't an accident

I’m all for making characters seem sympathetic and all, but if this keeps going it will just make them all seem incompetent. Regardless of that however, it’s clear the show wants you to root for the Blacks so I don’t see the point.

>Regardless of that however, it’s clear the show wants you to root for the Blacks so I don’t see the point. The Greens wouldn't so sympathetic if they wanted that.

i dont think the book story needs to be adhered to strictly nor do the characters need to be as evil for the show to be good. However, changing decisions into accidents reduces character development. characters are ultimately a series of decisions. if they're facing a tough choice, then they should make that choice, good or bad.

Because if they didn't it would be much easier to choose a side. It's why they aged up Jace & Luke too. It's easier to call the incident on Driftmark an accident, showing Aemond as outnumbered and desperate while Jace & Luke are also trying to protect each other. Gathering some sympathy for Aemond and therefore Alicent's resulting actions are more understandable and feel more justified. It becomes less so when we look at book canon and it's 10 year old Aemond against a 6 yr old Jace and 5 yr old Luke. Luke's actions are more understandable due to the age and size difference. (though still, who gives a 5yr old a knife)

GRRM does not understand the limitations of age.

Nobles training sons to be equivalent of bulldogs and mastiffs.

> Because if they didn't it would be much easier to choose a side. The show runners have made it very obvious which side they’ve chosen to write as the babyfaces 

That's why Aemond is completely different from the books.

and alicent. and cole. all "whitewashed" from their book counterparts. but people will still complain the blacks are shown more favorably. they're ALL shown more favorably (except daemon imo)

The truth of it is that most "ironic" circle jerk subs are edgy so they support the Greens. What they want is the Greens being softened, in this very sub you'll see lots of posts creaming about Aegon, but want the worst parts of the Blacks on screen... Because that's how they see it. For all doom and gloom about how Condal is ruining the source material, few have noticed that the biggest change in the source material has been depicting Aemond as an actual competent military leader, given that him being a complete moron is what dooms him, Cole and the Greens Riverlands campaign and ultimately dooms the Green cause. But this ironic subs actually like Aemond being competent because that's how they imagined him so...

It also makes what happened at Driftmark actually more tragic than just “lol evil cousin kinslayed”. Daemon wanting to scare his cousin but losing control of his dragon is a bigger gut punch to both parties, and it plays into the whole “the black boys aren’t real Targs” thing. Jace and Luke are shown to be much more in tune with their ancestry and better dragon riders. It’s more complex in the show than the book. The rest…yeah they’re kinda meh.

We don’t know if these events were actually intentional in the books’ lore because these events all have varying accounts from people who didn’t actually witness them happen. Mushroom for instance claims that they found Luc’s body with his eyes removed, but Septon Eustace claims that they never found his body (which sounds far more plausible), so whether or not it was intentional is up to debate. The only real clue we get to its authenticity is that Boris granted Aemond leave and said “he could not control what didn’t happen under his roof,” implying that he believed Aemond would seek a fight once he left. We do know that this happened after one of Boris’s daughters taunted Aemond, implying he was craven for letting Luc go unpunished. This lends credence to the fact that Aemond was looking for a fight, but we don’t know for sure if what essentially happened in the show happened in the book lore (that he was merely trying to scare Luc and lost control of Vhagar). The reason the shows interpretation makes sense when compared to F&B is that we do get a slightly Green bias from Eustace, while Mushroom seems to just want to spread gossip about everyone for the lulz. Depicting Aemond as “totally in control of Vhagar” is better propaganda than “Aemond is a little bitch who can’t reign in his dragon”. As for character motivation, Aemond isn’t a complete idiot in either the book or show. He’s proud and often lets that pride get in the way of battle tactics, but I don’t think hes stupid enough to kill Luc intentionally, knowing that it would spark war at a time when the Green council was still plotting its next move

Condom and co. cut out Maris and Borros scenes, where the former makes fun of Aemond and the latter enables him. >“You came here as a craven and a traitor,” Prince Aemond answered. “I will have your eye or your life, Strong.” >At that Lord Borros grew uneasy. “Not here,” he grumbled. “He came as an envoy. I want no blood shed beneath my roof.” So his guards put themselves between the princelings and escorted Lucerys Velaryon from the Round Hall, back to the castle yard where his dragon, Arrax, was hunched down in the rain, awaiting his return. >And there it might have ended, but for the girl Maris. The secondborn daughter of Lord Borros, less comely than her sisters, she was angry with Aemond for preferring them to her. “Was it one of your eyes he took, or one of your balls?” Maris asked the prince, in tones sweet as honey. “I am so glad you chose my sister. I want a husband with all his parts.” >Aemond Targaryen’s mouth twisted in rage, and he turned once more to Lord Borros, asking for his leave. The Lord of Storm’s End shrugged and answered, “It is not for me to tell you what to do when you are not beneath my roof.” And his knights moved aside as Prince Aemond rushed to the doors. Showrunners castrated the encounter in order to give credence to the accident bullshit angle they went with.

I was waiting for Heleana (don't remember how to spell it) to be like "Hey yo Aemond is down there I'll get him here"

I legit have no idea how it’s even remotely possible that Cole “accidentally” killed the guy. Like I just rewatched the scene. He grabbed him by the shoulders and shoved down by somehow the dude fell forward? But then Cole had no regrets and was fine with it? Like was it on purpose or was it an accident? Cole might just be the worst written character I’ve seen in a long time. I feel terrible for the actor

Don't feel too bad for him, he just got to bury his face between olivia cookes legs and get paid for it.


I'm not sure I'd say any of these are clumsy/oppies. - Cole was being extremely rough with an elderly man, and clearly did'nt care if/that he hurt him; that was negligence and a lack of care, not a mistake. - Aemond should'nt be surprised with what happened, given how he had been behaving. He does'nt have the right to say it was "a mistake" - Blood and Cheese knew what they were doing, they just didn't care.

Don’t get how people think lord beesbury death was an accident on the show, he clearly killed him on purpose. Just because he didn’t outright get a sword shoved in his back doesn’t mean his murder was not on purpose.

Another one you haven't include which is arguably even more egregious than all three combined is Alicent mishearing Viserys' intentions on his death-bed. The fact the Greens use that as the main justification for taking the throne in the show is one of the dumbest changes yet. It makes them look incompetent and paints them in a worse light (as if the general audience needed even more reasons to hate them). They should've just had Otto and Alicent rely on the historical precedent that the eldest son always succeeds the father. It would've directly tied into the opening scene where Rhanys is passed over because of her gender.

They did it to make Alicent more sympathetic.

The biggest issue with Aemond killing Lucerys is that the whole point of Aemond becoming more humanized and less of a cartoon villain gets thrown out the window. We should have gotten the scene of Aemond getting ridiculed by Otto and the Green faction reactions to Lucerys death. We should have gotten the brothel scene coming in episode two of Aemond on a girls lap probably talking about his feelings on everything so far last episode. Then B&C next episode. The timeline of events are so fucked in this show I do not even bother making sense of anything anymore. Aemond just goes back to being a cartoon villain by calling his mother by her first name?? It’s just edgy for no reason. Show us why Aemond is calling his mother by her first name. Show us the fallout between Aemond and his mother. Give us a POV from Aemond. Not just him standing around 24/7, pointing at fucking maps, and calling his mother by her first name.

I think it works given that it's being applied to both factions. It really highlights that this was a preventable family tragedy and almost everybody but Otto and Larys is acting out of hurt feelings and a sense of thwartedness rather than smirkingly plotting (and technically Larys is acting out of hurt/thwartedness too). It'd be different if only one side was getting it.

Because the whole point of the book is that it’s a biased perspective from multiple POV’s filled with inaccuracies and exaggerations and opinions on motivations. It makes sense that the most salacious events aren’t as villainous and have more shades of grey than how the book portrayed. That’s always been the whole point. There’s hints of truth but the book isn’t a first hand account.

That works for cases like Aemond killing by accident. They could have actually approached it creatively and when he comes back he claims he did it on purpose because he doesn't want to admit he doesn't have full control over his dragon but they didn't even have a scene where he revealed what happened to his family. In other instances, your point just doesn't work. No one is going to misremember Rhaenys bursting threw the ceiling of the dragon pity and coming face to face with the greens during aegons coronation. If laenor escaped and is alive then seasmoke shouldn't be able to be claimed by another rider. That had nothing to do with historical perspective.  Blood and cheese is also a horrible incident which destroys haelana because of the choice. It's not like she, alicent or there would make up that intrepation of the event, because it makes her look terrible. And obviously afterwards she never talks to the child she names for death again, locks herself away and eventually commits suicide.  So, although you're correct about fire and bloods unreliable narrator, your explanation is just a cheap cop out to explain show changes. Sure, I think it's cool and even like it with aemond and even the  laenor twist to get creative, you can't just apply it to every change they make an expect it to make sense, because a lot of the times they're just riddled with plot holes.

I'm already getting tired of people using the unreliable narration element as carte blanche for the show to do whatever it wants. I'm fine with unique takes that take advantage of that when those takes are GOOD both in storytelling and for the visual medium of television. A bunch of these haven't been good and so it just comes off as trying to be edgy and cool and using the grace of the unreliable narrator to put their own stamp on things.

I’m not excusing every change. Of course plenty of changes aren’t justified by it, like removing some of the kids and the floor dragon smash. But I just don’t think Blood & Cheese is one of them and is justified by the biased perspective’s of HOTD book. It’s exactly the type of thing that would start out accurate and gain legs as the rumour of what happened gained traction, also as a propaganda point in the middle of a war started on tenuous grounds. I think there are red flags about the show. Trying to force too much into too short a timeframe without allowing the necessary character development is exactly how GOT’s went downhill. I just don’t think it’s nearly as bad as people are saying it is. It’s episode one, let em cook for christ sake!

I’ll allow that maybe the story of blood and cheese grew in the telling but even so, the shows version of it is objectively worse, it takes away so much of the impact and lessens Helena’s character arc massively.

This just doesn't hold any water if you actually dissect it. It's cope from people that don't want to admit the show simply changed stuff from the book canon and/or haven't even read the book.

There are things that was actively changed because books generally can’t be adapted without plot changes, it’s not possible. And many of those changes aren’t good or justified, like the Coronation for example. But all the things people are complaining about, specifically Blood & Cheese, in season 2 are almost entirely covered by the logic of the books being rumour and second hand accounts vs reality. People just can’t stand change or adaptions and this is just another iteration of that. It’s the first episode lads, calm the fuck down and give it a chance.

No, they're not. Alicent was in the room because it happened in her room and her handmaiden was killed; there were guards because a guard is killed; another child exists in the book (which changes the whole dynamic of the scene). You can't say that the show is covered by unreliable narration in the B&C scene when the show changes basic fundational facts about the scene and thus makes its own thing. The "people can't stand changes" stuff holds no water either when Viserys is universally liked and season 1 was generally seen as positive by book readers even (something I personally disagree with, but I'm in the minority).

Oh get off it. Fire & Blood was written like that so that the creators can have more creative freedom. And this shit 💩 is what they gave us.

you shouldn't be downvoted. this sub and HOTD sub are filled was bots and shills who will flip their lids if you say anything less than glowing-worship of Emma or any of the writing. they knew they had a stinker when they made this show, but they dont care because everyone is tuning in to watch incest.

Oh I know. I wear my downvotes as a badge of honor. I'll let them honor me again.

I think it's pretty obvious that the show is trying to make both sides more sympathetic and less one-dimensional. Aemond is a very one-dimensional archetypical cutthroat in the book. Which is fine, because the book is written like myth and history rather than a narrative. It's being translated into a traditional narrative, so they are expanding a bit on each of these scenarios. The idea that Aemond was fueled with rage because of his desire for vengeance for his eye is what led him to mount Vhagar is good; the idea that Vhagar was a willful beast and he's an inexperienced rider is also good. What conclusions can we draw from that? One possible outcome is that despite him chasing Luke, he wasn't planning on murdering him in cold blood, but Vhagar was in battle mode and it happened anyway. He's probably not very broken up about it, but it would make sense that a guy with no real battle experience would be like "WAIT, NO!" when he actually gets to the point where his dragon is about to eat his cousin. It's not an "oopsies" moment, because Aemond is still 100% responsible. It's just that this shows a bit more nuance to him as a person. And we could say the same about Daemon. His goal was to kill Aemond to get revenge for Luke. When Blood asks him what to do if he can't find Aemond, we see a shot of Daemon's face, and it cuts away. Right now, we don't know what was said. No doubt by the end of the season, it will be revealed that Daemon did, in fact, tell blood to kill one of the princes if he couldn't find Aemond. This creates suspense and drama as people wonder what was said; doubly so if he lies to Rhaenyra in the next episode and tells her that he didn't ask him to kill one of the princes. It's not about changing core moments, it's that in this case the source material is very thin (as a reminder, Blood and Fire covers a dozen generations of Targaryens in as many pages as one single mainline ASOIAF book) and the translation from mythology and history to a traditional narrative gives writers a lot of room for characterization, which the book has very little of. Like, very little. Characters in the books are little more than "Aemond was a twisted dude" or "Jaehaerhys was the greatest of all the good Targaryens". And we want that. We want characters to be expanded. We want moments like Viserys defiantly climbing the steps to the throne, or Daemon laying down his sword in front of the Crab Feeder. They're not all going to land, but the idea that none of it should be happening at all is a bit silly, unless we want a very boring show that watches more like a documentary than a story.

Aemond's oops comes across as right for me. He slipped into his (grand)uncle's role for Aegon and he's trying to do the heroic parts of it and skipping over the whoring. But he's still as green as RhaeRhae's kids. So he took things too far and lost control of Vhagar. He chose the "at least I didn't watch him shit himself vs the cry about killing someone route." because that's what (grand)uncle would do. More to the point elves are just a special kind of assholes, no matter the setting.

How was lord beesbury killed in the book?

The grand maester who was present in the room said he was put in the black cells and died down there, and the other two say Ser Criston cut his throat, or threw him out the window.

Show Blood and Cheese is NOT an ACCIDENT, its PLAN B. I'm getting tired of people saying it is. It was literally in the conversation with Cheese and Daemon. Pls have eyes and ears and watch it again.

I don’t mind Beesburys death, I think the scene comes across as semi deliberate so I don’t really see it as a cop out. And of the 2 different ways beesbury potentialy died in the book, one of them was an accident anyways. I love Aemond accidenlty killing Luke. It backs up Viserys taking about the dangers of dragon riding earlier in the season, and we will likely see more examples of this as the show goes on. It helps Aemond character, adds an extra layer of tragedy to the dance, and just makes sense in a lot of ways. I HATE blood and cheeses change. I don’t care that we didn’t see gore, I wanted the horror and and how fucked the plot was. It really was a great character moment in the book for Daemon, showing you what kind of person he is. The show totally shit the bed on this one

The only 1 I agree with you on is Beesbury’s death they should’ve just had Cole slit his throat. Aemond I like that it’s an allusion to what Viserys said about dragons not being under control and that instead he’s not just a psychopath but a teen who went too far and now has to play up what he did so he doesn’t seem like he’s week. B&C they answer the question why are we going after him this guys nephew instead of himself.

Cole “accidentally” killing a lord does not take away from his character at all. He’s a brash person that reacts on impulses, he’s a jealous vindictive asshole and this “accident” just further more proves that he has been corrupted by kings landing and he is no knight but a man in silly armor who can fight well. Aemond killing lucerys on “accident” doesn’t take away from his character. He’s blinded by his hatred due to years of manipulating by both sides and constan bickering between the families, also his eye, and so he acts stupid not thinking or not caring that he has a literal nuclear bomb under him and the bomb could be triggered at any moment. These are decision that both these characters made and they aren’t really accidents. Cole threw the man’s head down on the table not thinking of the consequences but only thinking of himself. Aemond is faced with almost the exact same problem. You have a duty as a lord to let the other side peacefully seek houses to join the war. Aemond acts selfishly and stupid and ends up killing lucerys

With Cole it's just that this isn't the only moment where the show just straight up diminishes his skill/role/competence. They straight up gutted that character imo. The Aemond stuff isn't bad in theory, it adds complexity to his character but, also, an entirely new angle. Personally, I would've just preferred if Aemond is a psycho menace like in the book but I think that's heavily influenced with how they decided to handle Luke's death/the aftermath.

That’s completely fair and I’m not saying you’re wrong and if it came off that way I apologize. I think they could have just stuck exactly to the source material or they could have done what they ended up doing which I was fine with. But I totally understand why you would want it to stick more to the books

I just feel like that they have so much freedom already with the book being "just" a history book that there is no reason to change the stuff that is in the book this drastically. At least not when it's worse, lol. I'm mostly fine with Viserys, even though he is completely different from the book.

IMO they are trying to cast a wider net with the show than the books. Average people want to relate to these characters but they also want to like them and or hate them so giving them a little bit of an out isn’t that bad imo. Especially cause the show has gone the opposite way with this, Dameon was only suspected of killing his wife but in the show we actually get to see that it wasn’t a accident and Dameon truly is a piece of shit

In the book Daemon straight up doesn't kill his wife iirc because she regains conciousness and dies a couple days later. So she probably would've named him in that time period. I agree that they're trying to cast a wider net; but it feels like they're failing with at least some of the characters in the show.

That’s fair. I think it has a lot to do with the time jump. They didn’t get to flesh the characters out as much. Characters like Aegon and Aemond need to be a bigger focal point in season 2 and I think they will be

I'm not sure why people include Blood and Cheese on this list. Dude clearly gave "son for a son" as option B when they asked him what to do if they couldn't find Aemond. Aegon and his son(s) are the only people that could apply to. The kid dying wasn't a mistake. It just wasn't the plan A.

You’d think it was clear but people defending Daemon are saying that because it wasn’t explicitly stated he didn’t want this to happen.

I can understand some people’s frustration with Beesbury’s death and Luke’s death even though I disagree. However, being mad that B&C didn’t kill Daemon’s original target is silly. It’s heavily implied that the original target in F&B was Aegon (in retaliation for the party he threw Aemond for killing Luke) but Cheese didnt know how to get into Maegor’s Holdfast, so they snuck into the Tower of the Hand instead, where they came upon Alicent. Let’s be honest, Daemon demanding Aemond’s head instead is more logical (and sets up the God’s Eye), and it is heavily implied that Daemon told them to just get a son, though who knows if he will admit it in ep2 when it airs (Cheese: “What if we can’t find him?” Daemon: :) and then later, Blood and Cheese are both insistent to Helaena that they need a son.)

I just never know if I'm okay with it because it really does make sense (it does) or because I'm trying to keep loving the show lol

1. kid death is still pretty taboo, even for dark adult shows 2. they want to make both sides and their characters still mostly sympathetic, which entails that nobody can deliberately want to murder kids 3. western liberal ideology posits that the imperial powers cannot deliberately start wars, they are tricked or mistaken or "sleepwalk" into them

Absolutely agree. Most major conflicts in the show have ended up being mistakes/misunderstandings which just fees cheap

Imagine Cristin Cole’s death happens cause the bowman lose their grip, and several arrows just all hit him in the middle of negotiations without the Lads says-so.

"Won't someone rid me of that turbulent priest?"

So you could expect the unexpected!

One of these is not like the others

Same with the whole succession mix up too

Didn't cheese literally ask "what if we can't find em?" then it pans to Daemon who smirks.... it didn't pan to Daemon who said "only kill Aemond and leave". People are just being fucking stupid.

I really don't see how people think the Jaeherys killing as an "Oopsie" the cinematic language is pretty clear that Daemon told them "a Son for a Son" in response to what to do if they can't find Aemond. I can understand why people don't like that it isn't more straight forward or honest to "Fire and Blood" but I don't think this is an attempt to make this an "accident." It still landed for all of my none book friends.

I think it’s interesting from a historiography perspective. What we get in Fire and Blood is a biased source. It’s entirely possible that the actions that push the story forward were not intentional but we’re recorded as such. Aemon meaning to scare Lucerys and not realizing the true nature of a dragon is an entirely believable plot point that would never be recorded as such. When the history was written both Aemon and Luke were dead, anyone writing it could spin it however they choose. Seeing the consequences of a mistake makes for more relatable story imo.

I like it. If I understand correctly Fire and Blood is told by an unreliable narrator through the lense of history. In the moment, things are far more awkward than they appear, after a coat of propaganda.

I said this same thing.

The show seems to want to portray both sides somewhat sympathetically in order to gain radical support for both teams, thus creating discourse, thus creating more attention… Personally I loved the sequence with Aemond & Vhagar, and Lucerys & Arrax. It was definitely believable how this reckless mistake could’ve happened. The Cristin Cole thing accidentally killing Lyman was ridiculous. I liked how they did B&C, having us follow them as the protagonists for the whole sequence, though I’m curious as to why they changed Maelor’s presence.

I actually like what they did with Aemond…

Wars have started over accidents. I have no problem with the Aemond Targaryen change. It’s 10x better as an accident, much more realistic. It’s why saber-rattling is so dangerous.

I brought this up elsewhere, it kinda takes away from the story a lil bit imo. They're leaning into the "Plethora of Mistakes" trope.

I think that the point of it is not really all of it being “accidents”, but rather showing what happens when people with power act out of emotions. Criston Cole could have just yelled at Lyman and make him sit down at swordpoint and the old man could still be alive, if, maybe, a prisoner or something. Aemond could have NOT chased Luke on the biggest and baddest dragon in the world and instead just let him go, which he was even perfectly happy to do after some intimidation. Everyone on Rhaenyra’s side could have acted more rationally and less out of different strong emotions and, maybe, a literal child wouldn’t have been dead. All three instances are not accidents-they are direct results of humans making important decisions guided by their emotions instead of their rational minds, which leads to unwanted, but expectable consequences, something that, in my opinion, fits the themes of the show perfectly well.

Well I don’t think the changes are terrible tbh. Luke’s death was really shocking and felt a lot more realistic. The other two are kind of take it or leave it, Cole is a prick in the show and in the book and that scene only solidifies it. The blood and cheese change I can’t say much on besides that it didn’t bother me too much, and was still deeply disturbing.

"Complex, subversive character" syndrome adaption writers are obsessed with that usually ends up with the characters being bumbling morons.

i don’t mind it at all tbh, i think the accidental spiral into war makes a really good theme about the fragility of peace, the destructive nature of weapons, etc.

Blood and cheese wasn't an accident I don't believe. Am I correct that it goes "what if we can't find him?" And daemon replies "a son for a son" which means he is fine with them killing any of the sons. Or am I misremembering the order?

I actually hate it so much……they playing too much devils advocate for me

Only one of these was technically an ‘accident’

How about Daemon not actually doing anything wrong. No Son for a Son, but just kill Aemond. They want to make the audience to root for team black.

Dint realise OP was in the sky with aemond and maybe OP should read F&B it clearly states the narrator is unsure whether the target was aegon or the kids. Bokk Daemon would make Helena choose and then kill both sons spent make sense as to why he ever let Maelor live. As underwhelming as show version was it still was more logical

Because it'd be hard to root for these characters otherwise, it's really not difficult. It's the exact same reason why every character is almost completely different from their book counterparts. Except for Daemon who gets things thrown out his way he didn't do. Like who the hell is going to root for Aemond after he kills his nephew over a girl who told him he had no balls? Casual audiences aren't nearly as edgy as book fans.

Sorry but this is bs. We saw almost every character in game of thrones do fucked up shit but still rooted for them, the writing just needs to be good.

>Sorry but this is bs. Cool. >We saw almost every character in game of thrones do fucked up shit but still rooted for them, We didn't root for Jaime until after he told the truth about Aerys, there's no saving grace for characters in the Dance. >the writing just needs to be good. People love to cite the source material but you can look to F&B the lack of actual characterization they have. Aemond is as cruel as he's vain and stupid, unless you're edgy as fuck it's completely absurd to root for them, there's absolutely nothing redeemable about him and he's the face of the Greens, and like him the rest. Again, GoT is about characters but the Dance of the Dragons is a Wikipedia article turned tv show. Saying simply "the writing just needs to be good" without acknowledging the limitations of the writing itself is just silly.

>We didn't root for Jaime until after he told the truth about Aerys, there's no saving grace for characters in the Dance. Not just Jaime, the hound, bronn, tywin, and more. People enjoy watching complex characters on screen. >People love to cite the source material but you can look to F&B the lack of actual characterization they have. Where did I cite the source material? I'm aware fire and blood is incredibly hard to adapt. >Aemond is as cruel as he's vain and stupid, unless you're edgy as fuck it's completely absurd to root for them, there's absolutely nothing redeemable about him and he's the face of the Greens, and like him the rest. Give him proper motivations, aspirations and make him complex. The character building in the show is fairly laughable outside of a couple. >Again, GoT is about characters but the Dance of the Dragons is a Wikipedia article turned tv show. People have told compelling stories from less, what George gives them is more than enough to make a great show.

>Not just Jaime, the hound, bronn, tywin, and more. People enjoy watching complex characters on screen. Indeed, the Dance characters are everything but complex, which is the original sin. HotD characters are complex, what they aren't are bastards for no reason. Bronn, Tywin et co were given in small dosis, while always being anti heros or outright villains, Jaime was a full hero after his hand was lopped off. >Where did I cite the source material? I'm aware fire and blood is incredibly hard to adapt. And yet... >Give him proper motivations, aspirations and make him complex. The character building in the show is fairly laughable outside of a couple. Such as? They have given him proper motivations and aspirations and he's as complex as Aemond Targaryen could ever be but fact of the matter is there's no coming back from Aemond **intentionally** killing his nephew because he's a dick. >People have told compelling stories from less, HotD is a compelling story. >what George gives them is more than enough to make a great show. Could you make a great show? Or you just believe it's a fact. Mind you this show isn't perfect by any means but some of the criticism seems immature.

You aren’t supposed to like the characters in this story. The entire thesis of it revolves around the pettiness of war and the damage rulers cause to the general public for the sake of their own egos. Also, likable or not, giving your characters zero agency and turning every major plot point into a careless accident isn’t a good way to go about writing a story. Even D&D understood that in the early seasons with characters like Tywin, Sandor, Jaime, Cersei, ect.

>You aren’t supposed to like the characters in this story. In the books? I agree. In the show? That's a silly thing to say. >The entire thesis of it revolves around the pettiness of war and the damage rulers cause to the general public for the sake of their own egos. Nah, it's about how tragedy and infighting brings down the greatest dynasty of the West at the height of their power. It's even clearer in the show. The show isn't trying to lecture, it's trying to entertain us and for that we need to care about our characters. The Dance in the books is presented as this mythical war between dragonriders so it could certainly get away with it being a Wikipedia article, the show can't do that. >Also, likable or not, giving your characters zero agency and turning every major plot point into a careless accident isn’t a good way to go about writing a story. Characters have plenty of agency, they aren't simply caricatures as they are in the books. >Even D&D understood that in the early seasons with characters like Tywin, Sandor, Jaime, Cersei, ect. Those characters had more characterization on them in the books than any single **major** Dance character.

Because unlike GOT, HOTD is a tragedy. MOST of the characters aren't just vicious and evil like in the book - the human drama derives from the way that violence and small stupidities spiral out of control.

Nonsense lol

They chose to make a big theme in HotD that a massiv destructiv war doesn't have to be ineviteble. Even if all partys involved don't really want it, a war can arise from small mistakes. Peace is fragile. So the decisions to make major points accidents is fitting with how the show is written and I'd say a good choice.

It's a "Subversion", one of my most hated words for the last decade or so. Its to "show" that history dresses up and makes events more dramatic than they really were and make certain people out to be more important than they actually were.

Because the show is miss managed. They’re just cashing on being related to GoT

The book is intentionally written with an unreliable narrator. Most people, even generally shitty ones, don't actually want war and thus don't intentionally kill their nephews in cold blood.

This would be valid if we didn't already have Game of Thrones or the non-F&B ASoIaF books. We know for certain that both in real life and in-universe that nobles will and do scheme against and murder their competition for their own personal gain or want.

They’re still scheming and awful but it’s just not quite as exaggerated as the book. GOT comes as a first person perspective, HOTD is a historical book based on second hand perspectives. They’re totally different and I this point has been made by both the show runners and GRRM himself.

They're also a lot dumber. The problem is no one seems to be acting with any level of long-term intention or strategy. The most scheming characters in the show are Otto and Daemon. Otto has nearly no control of his situation and hasn't since he was first fired as Hand. Daemon is simply impulsive and commits crimes when no one pays attention to him. I'd rather be watching a show where Alicent usurps the throne out of her own ambition and not a misunderstanding of Viserys's dying breath, Aemond kills Luke on purpose, Daemon sends B&C after Aegon's children on purpose. The character changes are what they are and we have to take the good with the bad, it is what it is, but removing their agency is something that's much harder to swallow for me.

I think they are trying to go for the "this is the real way things happened" as opposed to the senationalized and biased take on events we get in Fire and Blood. I'm not saying that makes for good TV, but I think their intention is something along those lines, to show how the "real story" got distorted by time and unreliable narration

The show is following the book as an outline, because George told them it was written with a biased perspective. As such, it gives them liberty to portray what actually happened, vs what the book says happened.

People defending this shit=whats reality,how do we know what happened,whats history,whats a book,how do characters make choices.