top of page
Charles Anderson

Is House of the Dragon an Heir to the Throne?

Updated: Sep 24, 2023

There are brief, fleeting, moments in human history when the populous comes together and admires something great in unison. These moments are not exactly rare, nor are they common. It is not often easy to predict what these occasions will be. However, when they happen, it is clear for all to see. When it first graced small screens more than a decade ago, Game of Thrones was a sensation. Not least of which because it highlighted the depravity people craved. Gratuitous nudity, shocking spillage of blood, intrigue. It was practically the super bowl every Sunday when the show aired. Blood sport. An evolution of the coliseum fanfare, enjoyed in the days of Rome. Everyone could pick their team, shout at their television, and watch on in awe. Some scenes beautiful, some scenes disturbing, the show had a chokehold on audiences season after season. A cultural event more than a television show.


That is why, when the show ended in disappointment and disgrace in the eyes of audiences, the show's legacy has a monstrous cultural event seemingly withered away. When something has been built up to the point of myth, it can never be satisfying to all. That being said, a failure to the scale of Game of Thrones is rarely seen. Despite this failure, Game of Thrones was a money maker. Grossing a reported $285 million an episode. Before the show's unsatisfying conclusion, the shows network, HBO, had already planned multiple projects arounds the property. However after the show's conclusion these potential projects were put into uncertain waters. That is why this year's prequel to Game of Thrones, “House of the Dragon’s ”success has been such a surprise to some.


The show is a somewhat blander rendition of the Thrones fans have come to expect. While this declaration is perhaps fighting words for some it is reluctantly true. The show is a tad more reliant on CGI, partially because it was filmed during the pandemic and travel to real sets was restricted. These elements make the show seem more corporate and hollow. They do the best they can but, to not exactly a fault of their own, it falls flat sometimes.


The writing is far more improvised than the first 5 seasons of game of thrones, much of which is ripped straight from George. R. R. Martin's texts. The source material for the show, “Fire and Blood” serves more as a historical textbook for Martin's land of Westeros than a risque fantasy epic. As such much more of the show's plot is improvised, going only off of footnotes from the original author. In this it succeeds somewhat, characters which are briefly mentioned in the original text are fleshed out, and even occasionally enjoyable. But at this point none of the show's characters are remotely as likable or humorous as the original. While the show need not need be a comedy there is an element of character and humor missing from the show as of yet. A majority of the characters feel more like plundering, scheming, scoundrels. The noble Starks, and joyful drunks of the original series are thus sorely missed. The dialogue and passing too are both occasionally bland. Often detracting from the show. Perhaps the easiest description is that it takes itself too seriously


While these critiques might seem harsh, the show should not be declared “bad.” It simply falls below the high standard set by the original. To the show's credit, it is far less gratuitous. While still engaging in some sexual depravity, the show can go whole episodes without nudity. Which is refreshing to see, the nudity depicted in the original game of thrones was nauseating as much as it was uneasy. Both sexual depravity and violence against women is far less than the original show. Certainly an improvement. The show still has the content fans have come to expect in regards to violence, but this time it’s somewhat more reformed.


The show's acting also excels to similar heights as that of its predecessor in regards to acting. Paddy Considine especially delivers a marvelous performance in the show's first season. A tragic almost Shakespearean King Viserys. George Martin himself insists Considine's King Viserys is better than his own version. Matt Smith, of Doctor Who fame and other members of the supporting cast give Emmy worthy performances.


Of course none of these words need to phase you, the show stands strongly on rotten tomatoes with 85% as well as an average episode viewership of 29 million an episode. The show will likely continue to be a powerhouse for the duration of its run on HBO which may last the next half decade. Its popularity might even eclipse its original as younger audiences, who were too young for Game of Thrones come of age. The shows second season isn't expected to heir for another 2 years, until then it’s first season will seem a staler and more corporate copy of its original.







1 view

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page