House of the Dragon – Review Season One

With the involvement of showrunners Ryan J. Condal and Miguel Sapochnik, alongside George R. R. Martin, HBO’s “House of the Dragon” delves into one of the most pivotal events in House Targaryen's history: the Dance of the Dragons. The inaugural season lays the groundwork and introduces key players as House Targaryen faces internal turmoil. 

Set nearly two centuries before the era of Daenerys and company, the prequel explores the quest for a worthy successor to the Iron Throne. Based on Martin's novel “Fire & Blood” from 2018, the series adapts his rich lore. It starts with a poignant scene featuring the ailing King Jaehaerys I Targaryen (Michael Carter)—one of the most important figures in Westerosi history. With his male heirs deceased, the realm faces a pivotal moment as the Great Council of 101 AC convenes at Harrenhal to determine his successor.

Among the fourteen candidates, the two primary contenders emerge: Viserys (Paddy Considine), Jaehaerys' favored heir, and Princess Rhaenys (Milly Alcock/Emily D'Arcy), the daughter of Jaehaerys' eldest son. In a decision driven by tradition and patriarchal norms, Viserys emerges as the chosen successor, while Rhaenys earns her infamous nickname “The Queen Who Never Was”. This selection foreshadows the familial strife and political machinations that will define Westeros for centuries.

Following the prologue, the show continues nine years into the reign of King Viserys I Targaryen, 172 years prior to the death of the Mad King and the birth of Daenerys Targaryen. Viserys faces a tumultuous court, with his brother Daemon (Matt Smith) and a clandestine council wielding influence behind the throne. Among them is the King’s Hand, Otto Hightower (Rhys Ifans), and his daughter Alicent (Emily Carey/Olivia Cooke), who maintains ties to both Rhaenyra and Viserys.

Viserys faces a heartbreaking decision between his wife, Aemma Arryn (Sian Brooke), and ensuring a male heir to the throne. The far-reaching implications of this decision echo throughout the history of House Targaryen, ultimately molding Westeros’ fate until Daenerys completes the cycle.

Shallow characters and one-dimensional plot

In theory, “House of the Dragon” has all the elements necessary for an enthralling series: drama, intrigue, betrayal, and passion. As expected from G.R.R. Martin's most renowned franchise, the viewer is immersed in a world rife with political intrigue, family conflicts, and territorial wars. However, it falls short spectacularly as it descends into a show of bickering noble families. 

The show's primary flaw lies in the absence of truly likable characters. Instead, we are presented with a slew of unlikable contenders vying for the throne, each more power-hungry and arrogant than the last—leaving little room for empathy or connection. Moreover, the characters lack nuance, appearing stereotypical and predictable in their actions. Where is the character growth? Where is the internal conflict?

What the show truly lacks is a ‘hero’; someone whose quest for power is propelled by a sense of duty rather than personal ambition. Initially, the portrayal of a strong, independent woman rising to leadership shows promise, but she transforms into a promiscuous mother fighting with another mother over whose kids get what.

To me, the show resembles a more melodramatic soap opera akin to “Melrose Place” than a grand fantasy epic. Occasional bouts of graphic violence or explicit content do little to elevate the boredom or distract from the overall lack of substance.

Regarding performances, the actors are hindered by shallow character development. Despite their efforts, none leave a lasting impression.

Polished aesthetics

The initial episodes failed to captivate, with the first episode proving challenging to endure. Despite this, I stuck with it. But then, episode six happened, and we jump ten-year into the future. Suddenly, we are introduced to a fresh ensemble of actors; however, it is peculiar that certain characters don't seem to age at all. I hardly had any interest in the original characters or actors, and now I'm expected to support the new ones. That was the final straw, and I completely lost interest (though I watched the whole season to review it). 

Nevertheless, “House of the Dragon” delivers visually with its cinematic shots and camera angles. King's Landing, the primary setting, with its cityscapes and palace grounds, is flawlessly rendered. The same goes for the opulent architectural designs. Sun-dappled cliff tops and blood-soaked beaches serve as backdrops for the tale of war and intrigue. Sadly, much of the season unfolds in semi-darkness, possibly to build suspense, which falls short.

In the first season of “Game of Thrones”, each episode had a budget of an unprecedented $6 million dollars, which later increased to $15 million dollars in the final season. To put it in perspective: HBO spent $20 million for each episode of “House of the Dragon”. This investment is evident in the improved CGI technology, with dragons displaying intricate detailing, vibrant coloring, and fluid movements, down to the smallest flaps on their skin.

Conclusion

While “House of the Dragon” impresses with its elaborate production values, the rushed pacing, exacerbated by frequent time jumps, detracts from the stories’ coherence and depth. It's clear that showrunners Condal and Sapochnik were eager to reach a certain point in the plot to really start the Targaryen civil war in season two. Unfortunately, this rush resulted in the neglect of character development and a captivating storyline.

2 Stars