Does House of the Dragon live up to the original Game of Thrones?
In the initial reviews of the highly anticipated new series, critics have attempted to answer this question, but the answer is somewhat equivocal.
Some publications, such as The Guardian, deemed it a “roaring success” that is “as great as its predecessor in its heyday.”
Others were more lukewarm. The Telegraph stated that it falls “rather short,” while The Wrap went even farther and stated that it “pales in comparison.”
House of the Dragon is rumored to have cost about £20m (£16.8m) per episode and will premiere on Sunday in the United States and Monday in the United Kingdom.
It is based on portions of the 2018 best-selling novel Fire and Blood by George RR Martin and is set almost two centuries before the commencement of Game of Thrones.
The Guardian’s Lucy Mangan described the upcoming good time as “relieving.”
She wrote, “All is as it was during Game of Thrones’ prime.” “Fun, energizing, aesthetically pleasing, and audibly acceptable.”
The Times characterized the new series as “visually magnificent, (mostly) well-acted, crisply written, and effectively packaged” in its five-star review.
According to Ben Dowell, it will be “accessible to anyone who hasn’t seen a second of Game of Thrones yet reassuringly familiar to those who have seen the entire series.”
The Los Angeles Times concurred, stating that House of the Dragon “recaptures the majesty and grandeur of the original.”
Critic Lorraine Ali noted that the prequel “quickly immerses viewers in the familiar sights and sounds of the Game of Thrones universe.”
“Returning to Westeros still requires a strong stomach (beware of wanton beheadings, carts full of mutilated body parts, and worse), but the previous fandom is not essential to become invested in House of the Dragon.”
Ali also stated that early sequences depicting childbirth and jousting “are potent enough on their own to make the first episode a smashing success and demonstrate that House of the Dragon has a greater knowledge of its female characters than Game of Thrones had in years.”
Inkoo Kang of the Washington Post stated that the show established itself “but not quickly.” She said that it is “first bumpy” and that “the first three installments are notably generic in their plotlines and pacing.”
She stated that it takes all six episodes available to reviewers (there are ten episodes in the first season) for the creators to “place all the pieces on the chessboard.”
‘Captivating’ relationship “However, once the game is finally set up for play, things soon become favorable.” The connection between erstwhile friends Rhaenyra and Alicent becomes more gripping as the stakes of their simmering, potentially fatal rivalry is heightened by motherhood.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, House of the Dragon is mostly about Emma D’Arcy’s Rhaenyra and Olivia Cooke’s Alicent “navigating paths to power in a male-dominated culture, being raised by fathers who don’t know how to raise them, while Matt Smith rides dragons and chews the scenery.”
Former Doctor Whom star Christopher Eccleston portrays the cunning Prince Daemon Targaryen. Daniel Fienberg, a critic, described him as “hammy, yet always engaging; he offers the best secondary performance.”
The plot focuses on his dynasty and who would succeed him as ruler of the Seven Kingdoms. Paddy Considine, another British actor, portrays Viserys Targaryen.
“Must discover its voice”
“The majority of our time is spent in King’s Landing, as opposed to the whirlwind pace of the original series,” Fienberg explained. There are many Targaryens and many incestuous relationships.
In the first six episodes, he observed, there is also “much that is impressive.” However, he noted, “It needs to find its voice, but if that voice remains this Targaryen-esque, I may lose my once-burning curiosity.”
The show is “fairly intelligent and well-executed” and is “firmly centered on palace intrigue,” according to Mike Hale’s review for the New York Times.
“It’s similar to the current smash series on HBO, Succession, except with dragons instead of helicopters.”
The characters lack depth.
He continued, “However, the seriousness of aim does not transfer into compelling drama. A moderate amount of sitting around tables and discussing the problems of the realm would be acceptable.
“However, the characters lack depth, having been mass-produced on Martin’s medieval fantasy assembly line. And when the drama journeys into the field for war or romance, the filmmaking again feels formulaic, but without the slick special effects that Game of Thrones provided.”
House of the Dragon, according to Rolling Stone, features “all the palace intrigue of its parent series, with none of the humor or drive.”
Alan Sepinwall stated that the characters are “nearly uniformly uninteresting” and that loading a show with “a gang of primarily dour Targareyns gives the whole enterprise the feel of the Star Wars prequels.”
While Smith remains a compelling camera subject, a touch too much of his performance as Prince Philip in The Crown seeps into this work. He portrays Daemon as more of a petulant adolescent than the virtually mythical warrior the show wishes to portray him as.”
Surprisingly devoid of blood
No matter how many CGI dragons it offers, the new season will not rekindle the fire in the hearts of viewers who once loved Game of Thrones not for the world, but the people in it,” said Sepinwall.
The Wrap’s Thelma Adams was also unimpressed, stating that despite all the slaughter, “the Targaryen clan seems shockingly bloodless (and humorless) in a bloated script that no longer ends each episode with the startling cliffhangers of old.”
She also stated that the plot “never takes flight” and that “Rhaenyra is not Daenerys.” The wit that was always available to lighten even the worst moments? Gone. The sexual aspect? Dry. The majority of the characters are bad and do unpleasant things to one other, but there is less tension, less at risk, and no dragon adventures.”
