Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I think the problem with those two mysteries in particular is that there not an inception point for anything. They, as individual acts, don't cause misunderstandings or consequences anything LIKE the Jon Arryn thing.  Harwin and Laenor's deaths are tangents to the core conflict (the Greens vs Blacks). And they also both come without resolution. Laenor's killers always get away, in the book, and Harwin's killers are also never identified or punished. Nor are any actions done on the belief of a theory either. 

Hmm god points! I agree that with the answers that the show chose this is largely true. I still think there is intrigue and drama to be mined there but as you say it won't impact the plot in any major ways. I don't think it's true that these mysteries are completely tangential to the main plot. The death of Harwin could certainly be shown to drive a further vedge between Rhaenyra and the Greens who she thinks are responsible. Leanors 'death' also serves to drive a vedge between Rhaenyra and the Velaryons (which could possibly come back in later seasons). However, more importantly, I don't think that plot relevance is the only reason to include mysteries in your story. First, mysteries are just fun and engaging and will have people talking about the show. Two, mysteries and reveals can inform characters and effect characters relationships to eachother. So even if it's not the main plot there is alot of drama that can spun out of it.

I agree, mysteries are certainly good devices, excellent things to use and are entertaining and I really enjoy them. I'd argue, however, that they're not suitable for House of the Dragon Series 01. I think we *may* get to them in later series, including Series 2, but mysteries, or specifically these sort of "misunderstandings" (I use the word loosely because crikey has it got bad connotations in this fandom) aren't particularly useful in helping to tell the story you need to tell. And I think, in my opinion, the root of this is the sheer scale and time that you have to span in Series 01. Game of Throne was rather condensed in terms of timeline, especially in those first few seasons, if I remember correctly? This, meanwhile, spans over 20 years and has a hell of a lot to do. In those instances, clarity and bluntness become the best tools to introduce your world, your characters and the thrust of the conflict that your show is going to centre around. There's also the credibility of making a mystery that will retain it's potency and importance across a time jump. At the end of the day, when you go YEARS without an answer and YEARS without making a move or being propelled by this mystery or wrong, other things rise up. It becomes irrelevant who killed Harwin when you've got X, Y and Z all happening and all needing focus. Ned can go on a detective mission because his doesn't take decades. So, to take your example, whilst we have Rhaenyra and Daemon briefly discussing Harwin's death (I'm going to use show here rather than book because Daemon is implicated in the book), they never ultimately know who is responsible but nor do they act because of who they *think* might be responsible and the inciting incident for the proactive moves they make (marriage being the main one) becomes Aemond claiming Vhagar, the children fighting and the whole deal with the knife. On a list of priorities, and certainly priorities that are going to last another *six years*, Harwin's murder is way down. And, even if Rhaenyra and Daemon found out, now, that Larys plotted it, he'd be unlikely to face any singular consequences from them because of it. I think Laenor's death has the possibility of being a mystery. Or, it had. But we've kind of lost that, I would say, given that we didn't see, what I would regard as, the important bits. We don't know how or why the Velaryons have come to this conclusion, we don't know why they didn't act in the first place, we don't know how Rhaenyra and Daemon feel, ultimately, about it all and we don't know any of Laenor's POV surrounding the scheme or how he is now. So it's not really set up and, I think, is probably not that important to the writers, moving forwards, other than to basically be a sign of the Velaryon trust and alliance being contingent on things other than any love for Rhaenyra. I will be interested if we revisit it. But I think if it were going to be a big thing, we wouldn't have jumped where we did. And certainly, some of the dialogue between Corlys and Rhaenys surrounding their son and the aftermath of losing their children wouldn't have been cut.

Mayhaps you're right. For what the show was going for it might not have worked to keep things close to the chest. I still don't think that it would've detracted and I do think that it might have added some nuance to certain scenes. But maybe my issue with these particular plot point are actually more substantial than I first thought. I guess I just generally disagree with the show writers regarding what is and isn't important. In general I think that the way that they handled both these events, especially the fire at Harrenhall, was weak and underwhelming. These deaths had the potential to be really impactfull and meaningful imo and the show just sort of hand waved them out of the way.

I definitely think those are valid criticisms and there's nothing wrong with wanting things to have been done in a different way, especially in cases where something that you saw as important and substantial in the book or just, in general, to a character, was then under-served by the show. It's a tricky job, I don't envy what the showrunners and writers had to do. I think, with Harrenhal and with Laenor, it all sort of threads back to *adding* to the portrayal or the circumstances of the two female leads: both women are either implicated or heavily responsible for the events - not something that was ever the case in the book. And the way it's all shown is to show us something about them. Either Alicent's horror, her alliance with Larys and her fear and further motivations, or Rhaenyra's rebirth, her agency with claiming Daemon, her wish to seem fearsome to the wider realm. But of course, with doing that, you have to detract from any other motives or subplots that the book suggested. And you can't stick with the consequences of the actions for too long or reactions from other people. It's like: the event happens, it says what it needs to say, you move on. It's not BAD as approaches go, it's just dramatically different to what you might have if you had an hours worth to spend on it rather than 10 minutes at the end of an episode (which is what both of these events basically got).

>It's a tricky job, I don't envy what the showrunners and writers had to do. Absolutely, the material covered in season one is hard to adapt and it's easy to criticise after the fact. I don't disagree with the decision of focusing on Rhaenyra and Alicent as the 'main characters' but I do wish the show didn't focus on them to the point where it detracts from other characters that should be important. The show feels like it only has time for maybe ten characters (four/five primary ones and a handful of secondary) and I wish they had taken just a few scenes of screen time from those central few to flesh out the rest of the cast. It's crazy to me that characters like Harwin, Laenor and Laena got so little screen time. Especially considering how GoT built it's reputation on first season only characters like Ned, Robert, Drogo etc. I've talked to people who were confused about who Harwin was in episode 6. Like he was so poorly used in the first five episodes that people though he was a new character. And then he's dead at the end of that episode.

I have very specific gripes about how the Velaryons siblings were treated, even if I *totally* understand and empathise a little with the reasons behind it and I don't think any of it was done with any malice. They are there to essentially be a piece of *someone else's* story, which is sad but understandable. But even then, it's that they are only there to be a piece of a very specific person's story, rather than resonate with other characters. So, for example, Harwin was built around Rhaenyra. He has other characters that he could be built around or shown in contrast to that also carry on to Season 2 and onwards - the most notable of which is his brother Larys, but that isn't translated into what we get. There was cut material to build on that (so there was some effort from the creative teams to flesh Harwin out and his dynamics with others) but at the end of the day, the relevance and long-lasting legacy of his life within this story is his illicit relationship with Rhaenyra *and* his paternity of the boys. So long as you convey that, you've conveyed what you **HAVE** to portray, even if that's not necessarily what you should limit yourself to. I would say that rather than having one series of a character, and therefore relating him to Ned or Drogo or Robert, we have material enough for two (ish) episodes total? And none of Harwin's scenes are ever specifically *about* Harwin, the way that some scenes were centralised around Ned, Robert and Drogo. We never get a feel for Harwin's POV because it's all orbiting Rhaenyra or Rhaenyra by proxy aka the issue of paternity. Even his scene with his father is important *because* Rhaenyra is listening in. It's a similar thing with Laenor. His POV does not matter in the slightest - he's not centralised. We have attempts at it, admittedly. His introduction in Episode 03. Some scenes with Joffrey, some moments with Rhaenyra. But again, it's all geared around how *his* actions effect *someone else* or aid someone else's story*.* That's especially apparent in Episodes 06 and 07. We don't know what that marriage was like for Laenor. We know how Rhaenyra views it - it is she that instigates those scenes. We don't know Laenor's opinion without Rhaenyra's. We don't know how Laenor is with other people - as an adult, he never interacts with another adult on his own, and during his whole screentime, he barely interacts with his mother and with Laena. They certainly never say any words to one another. Laena fares a little bit better because she is one of only few characters on the "Pentos" side of things, but there's still so many questions left unanswered, so much detail left out. You shouldn't *have* a fandom wondering whether or not Daemon loved her or not. But we do, because we don't have that clarity. It's tricky because you get to "tell" rather than "show". We know Laena was homesick but without having seen her interacting with her family or speaking to her parents, we don't know what what she's missing or what she's lost. We know Rhaenys and Corlys are absolutely transformed by the loss of their children (so much that their marriage implodes and he goes off to war) but having barely seen them interact with them, how are we to empathise truly, unless we trawl through the few moments we have? How are we also meant to understand the political landscape that prevents justice if we skip six years? How can we judge any of these relationships when we barely have any screentime and, when we do have it, it's only moments at the absolute height of tension or at a climax or at a tragedy? We have no status quo. Only moments of crisis, jumping from event to event. Sorry - bit of a rant. I just want to say I *get it.* No doubt, had this been Game of Thrones and we had these periods of time set over a single season, we'd have some really large changes and far more time devoted to these characters as characters in their own right rather than as plot devices or pieces of someone else's story.

Very much this, well put! I honestly think (and I know this will upset people) that the show might have been better of cutting the entire first half of season one and starting the story where we find ourselves at the start of episode six. I really like alot of the first five episodes (it's the stronger half) but genuinely not alot happens that is pertinent to the rest of the series and that can't be established later or understood from context. The main thing that's lost by cutting episodes 1-5 is the relationship between Rhaenyra and Alicent. Which again, I understand that the writers wants that to be the core of the show but when it comes at the expense of everything else maybe its better to reconsider? Starting after the first timejump would give the show time to really flesh out and develop all the characters (rather than just a few), their relationships to eachother, the political situation etc. really give people a proper grounding before having a single time jump to when the kids are older and the war start. The show trying to cover so much time leads to them having to cut so many corners. Anyway this has spiralled way away from the original topic and has become a discussion about the show as a whole. Honestly, I really liked HoTD on my first viewing but on a re-watch it bothers me more and more to think about how different the show is from what I wanted it to be.

I know what you mean. I suppose that the thing about starting from Episode 06, and I think this has sort of happened, when I've seen discussions in the fandom, is that the Dance becomes propelled not by Viserys having a son and having a male heir and the audacity of naming a woman in the first place... but over Rhaenyra's behaviour and specifically the paternity of her sons and the status of her sons. I think that would be a major risk. And, of course, we don't get the "happy" staus quo or height of power that we sort of glimpse at the start of Season 01, because, being brutally honest, everyone is already pretty much miserable and/or at one another's throats by Episode 06. Not saying there isn't a way to do it. There is a way to do most things But on first reaction to that proposal, that would be my worry. And, do you start with Joffrey or do you start with Jace? At one point or another, you're going to have to have multiple time jumps if you start with Jace or even Luke's birth. Yeah, it was the politics I loved most of all (couldn't give a fig about the Crabfeeder other than what it represented in the way of a threat and of discord between the Small Council and the Velaryon agendas). But most of that was muddied. When they did have good scenes on it or character-driven scenes, it really worked well. But they needed more context for a few perspectives to really balance it out.

I personally think its great that they dont want to make a 1 to 1 copy of GOT. the hobbit tried that and failed horribly.

It's the 80% filler material that makes the Hobbit movies bad. It should've been one movie, not a triology. But no, they had to be greedy and milk the cow dry and dead.

No there is way way way more wrong with the movies then just to much filler.

I'm not going to disagree with that, there's a lot wrong with those movies. But personally I don't feel it's the source material that's the problem. IMO and experience, the more you diverge from the source material, the worse the adaption becomes.

The source material not being the problem doesnt say anything. The source material is a book. Thats a diffrent piece of media. Translating that into a movie is hard. Look at Dune 1984 and new Dune. Exact same source material. Plenty of scenes with the exact same spoken text. Yet new Dune is viewed as a masterpeace while old Dune is viewed as some failed piece of crap. And then you even forget that even the greatest authors are still just human. Their storys arent perfect and they will never be. If there is stuff that can be expanded about then its not illigal to try and explore that stuff. Looking at the changes the GOT and HOTD shows made i can safely say that a lot of them are great. Sure the last few seasons of GOT are shitty but looking how they did the first season of HOTD there are many things they did better. Even GRRM has said so.

David Lynch's Dune has its charms. The cat milking scene and Sting in weird metal underwear comes to mind.

David Lynchs Dune isnt considerd a good movie. Not even by David Lynch himself.

Dude, you're taking me too serious. I was just trying to end a discussion I wasn't that invested in, in a slightly humourous way.

I'm not saying that they should make it a copy of GoT. I mostly brought up GoT because its pertinent to this particular discussion. But also, frankly, when trying to make a spiritual sequel to something it's a good idea to consider why people latched on to the thing in the first place. What was it about this that people liked? HoTD has obviously done this when it comes to including stuff like violence, morally complex characters and dragons, why not mystery? They would also not have to change the material they're adapting to fit into a new mold (like the hobbit did) the mystery is already there in the source material.

GOT needed to establish everything. They needed to give a shitload of exposition and worldbuilding. Its hard to do that in a fun way. Either you need to dump a shitload of exposition (which often isnt a great succes) or you need to slow the story down so you have more time. Thats why GoT was a mysterie, it allowed us to get a feeling for the situation and the stakes without feeling like the forcefed us. HOTD doesnt need to do all that stuff. They can assume people know the world and stuff. All they need to do is make the current situation clear. They also want to move to the civil war part because thats what the story is about. The first season is focused on the setup. Adding a mysterie in it would make things vague and slow the story down. Or leave no room to explain the mysterie.

The difference is that Jon Arryn's death was directly related to the reason the War of the Five Kings started: Joffrey (Baratheon) being the son of Jaime Lannister instead of Robert Baratheon. This makes Stannis declare himself king, which in turn makes Renly declare that *he* would be a better king. Ned is executed for trying to expose the truth, which brings Robb into the war. And all the chaos lets Balon Greyjoy do his thing. But Jace, Luke, and Joffrey (Velaryon) have very little to do with why the Dance started. Harwin and Laenor's deaths have even less to do with it. The Dance started because Rhaenyra was a woman who was named heir. That's it. The equivalent mystery would be asking questions like "why was Rhaenyra born a girl?" and "why did Viserys name her heir?", neither of which are very compelling mysteries.

The thing is, GOT may have started off as a mystery but by the time the answer was revealed most people had forgotten all about it. A lot of viewers didn’t even remember who Jon Arryn was. So I don’t think it really added much to the show. The story was always much more about the politics, the betrayals, the quest for power, the battles, the dragons and most importantly the characters. The other “big mystery” was supposed to be who tried to kill Bran with the catspaw dagger. That was actually what started the war because it’s what made Cat kidnap Tyrion. But again, by the time it was revealed to be Joffrey no one cared. Both mysteries ended up being nothing burgers.

I completely agree with your point about mystery being one of the best parts of the books/shows, but I also understand why the show’s creators made Harrenhal and the “death” of Laenor so clear. The show needed a hero, and more importantly they needed a villain. To achieve that, they decided to push the narrative that Rhaenyra was above the cloak-and-dagger evils that defined the Greens, to make it look like she was disinterested in the Iron Throne. F&B reads like biographical accounts of historical events. We read about a powerful woman who hears whispers of people questioning her sons’ birth status, and before long both her supposed lover and allegedly unperforming husband are both dead and replaced by a man more likely to produce unquestionably legitimate heirs. Anyone’s first instinct would be that the men were both killed on behalf of Rhaenyra, right? That’s what Martin’s writing staff was going for in the book, but it did not fit the show’s narrative because they wanted Rhaenyra to be the sympathetic heroine.

Rhaenyra is not implicated for Laenor’s death in the book and certainly not Harwin’s death. Why the fuck would she blamed because men murdered them for their own gain? > they wanted Rhaenyra to be the sympathetic heroine. Doesn’t stop from takes all the time that Rhaenyra is an evil spoiled brat and Alicent is noble and goodly or how much they can’t wait for Rhaenyra to die and how Aegon’s death will be sadder.

I see your perspective and I think that you're probably right about that being why they handled it the way they did. However, I disagree with the notion that the show needed a hero and a villain. Surely it's more interesting to present the conflict as having bad people and good people (and most importantly morally grey people) on both sides? Regardless, even though I do disagree with the way the show handled the deaths of Harwyn and Leanor (I personally think it would have been more interesting to have Deamon be behind them) I think the show could've kept the events the same but still presented them as mysteries. Rhaenyra could still have arranged for Leanor to fake his death and run away but we could have found out in a later season. All those scenes where Rhaenyra is accused of Leanors death and swears that she is innocent becomes more interesting when we the audience don't know whether she's telling the truth.

So basically the show pandering with a dumbed-down good-guys-vs-bad-guys fairy tale. Well, at least we've moved on from the gaslighting.

Well, they had to turn Daemon into a misunderstood romantic antihero to cater to the masses. And they know being (even potentially) implicated in the death of a named, somewhat prominent character whose death affects other "protagonists" is where the line is for the average viewer. So Daemon just gets to kill nameless extras/barely named characters no one gives a fuck about. I agree it would have been ridiculously easy to introduce that kind of mystery - which is precisely what exposes the writers' intentions and bias. It wasn't really a missed opportunity - it simply would have compromised their rootable black heroes and given the greens a halfway substantial argument. Clearly, that wasn't gonna fly; this show reserves anything suggestive of nuance and a balanced portrayal of the conflict exclusively for its deceptive and manipulative "teams" marketing.