MM67

One of the things that makes Game of Thrones work is the absence of the Targaryens: the struggle for power brings out the characters of both the individuals and their houses. Those characters, so finely and expertly drawn by GRR Martin, are what make GoT one of the greatest shows of all time, and why Martin has very few peers in his genre. Even in the books and on the show, Danaerys’s storyline, while still very good, is the weakest. Of all the sins of the infamous final season, the failure to convincingly portray her character’s arc is maybe the biggest.House of Dragons suffers from Targaryen Syndrome. There’s less distinction between the characters; to the extent they are portrayed, we’ve seen their type before. The relative lack of the presence of other houses hampers the show, while the preponderance of entitled silver-haired duds makes it hard to care about any one of them. Game of Thrones had a wealth of indelible characters whose stories fascinated us; even brief turns like Oberyn Martell were star-making and unforgettable. One of that show’s few flaws (all stemming from lack of original text and showrunners’ desire to wrap the show quickly) was including lame bad guy, Euron Greyjoy, without having the ability to develop his character (a psychopath on par with Ramsay Bolton in the book). House of Dragons hasn’t gone that far down, but it’s much more Euron than not. Daemon is arguably the most interesting character but even he seems like something not fully fleshed **** should be clear I blame the writing; like its predecessor’s final two seasons, HoD doesn’t have rich veins of Martin’s prose and character development l; its text source is more of a historical narrative. Most of the actors are very good and the show is beautifully crafted. It’s a good show, and I’ll be watching. But it carries on from the legacy **** show, making it fair game for comparison.