House of the Dragon season 1 review: An unspoilable Game of Thrones series

From the start, HBO’s House of the DragonIt was difficult to deal with an audience which at times looked like a lover in love. Game of ThronesIts predecessor was called “The.” and its ending caused so much disillusionment that every follow-up needed to address the issue immediately. HBO’s response, after Numerous, manyAborted and in-progress attempts House of the DragonA show that is based on an original story. Done.

Completeness House of the Dragon’s source material was the biggest selling point to the skeptics, a book that gave the Game of ThronesPrequel authorization to be basically Game of ThronesHowever, they were more modest and conservative than the rest and still wore their perfumes and proudly lifted the theme song. From a distance, this made the show look regressive, like a creative retreat for nervous producers and showrunners concerned with jeopardizing their big-budget cash cow — and in a lot of ways, that read is correct. House of the DragonIt is not bold TV. It is at times oddly self-referential, with writing more in conversation with the show’s own status as a Game of ThronesIt is more like a spinoff than a distinct story.

Yet thanks to the odd nature of its source material — George R.R. Martin’s supplemental text Fire & Blood, which is more of a fictional history book than a novel proper — House of the Dragon’s first season was able to relish in the pleasures of what makes good television. The show became an interpretive work, effectively free from the responsibility of adaptation. Given the big historical goalposts of Martin’s book, showrunners Miguel Sapochnik and Ryan Condal were free to decide how they thought some events came about, or happened differently. This extended to the dialogs writers had with the Targaryens as well as those who were around them. It also included the choices made by actors when portraying their inner worlds and their relationships.

Daemon (Matt Smith) placing a crown on Rhaenyra’s (Emma D’Arcy) head

Photo: Ollie Upton/HBO

King Aegon II (Tom Glynn-Carney) standing in front of a crowd of cheering Westeros members of the public, holding his sword in the air triumphantly

Photo: Ollie Upton/HBO

This isn’t necessarily different from what made Game of Thrones — or any TV show, really — good at its best, but it does serve as a meaningful reframing of the show and its relationship to the audience. The importance of House of the Dragon’s coming plot is just out there. If you search for the name or symbol of a dragon on Google, chances are that something will be revealed about the Targaryen clan. However, this is not the case with Game of Thrones — or any adaptation of a more straightforward narrative work — there is much less room for fans to debate about warring intents between the text’s various adaptors and the source material (which is already dubious by design).

It is difficult to be a spoiler in an age of pop culture, where entertainment has become so popular that spoilerphobia dominates the discussion. Talk about art, House of the Dragon inadvertently became a show that is arguably impervious to spoilers — or at the very least, it removes the question of where it’s all goingAs epic fantasies can. The big signposts are all there for anyone who cares to look: The war that is imminent at the end of “The Black Queen” was always going to come, the friendship between Rhaenyra and Alicent was always going to be dissolved, Rhaenyra’s claim to the throne was always going to be challenged. House of the DragonIt is definitely not something to make a fuss about What’s the deal?. It’s a show about Why is this important?.

This is the secret to the show’s highs as well as its lows. Its season 1 finale, in which Aemond accidentally kills Luke. George R.R. Martin set them both on the collision course within a matter of lines. House of the DragonIt used a carefully chosen selection of family stories to play out and incredible performances from its actors to make that a heartbreaking moment that could emotionally anchor the war that was inevitable.

A similar decision was made regarding House of the Dragon’s writers to depict Martin’s chronicling of the Targaryen family’s fortunes largely through the suffering of childbirth comes across as gauche. It’s a narrow and reductive way to analyze the gender and power dynamics the show is genuinely interested in as it traces the fortunes of two women who become rivals. Yet the show’s writers and directors continually fixate on it, feebly offering it as restitution for the frequent sexual assault suffered by women in Game of Thrones.

It is an appreciation of every production that should be given. Game of Thrones. There’s truth in the old saw of journeys mattering more than destinations, and it’s among the best ways to engage with and appreciate art of all types. What’s remarkable about House of the Dragon’s first season is ultimately its restraint. It’s a show that was free to include all the bombast of dragons and was bold enough to have its biggest moments happen at bedsides and dinner parties, where a misunderstanding or failure to communicate is more devastating than any amount of dragonfire. It’s a show that, despite its stumbles, knows that while endings are memorable, it’s the episodes before them that make them hurt.

#House #Dragon #season #review #unspoilable #Game #Thrones #series