‘House of the Dragon’ is the rightful heir to the throne

The travesty of the final ‘Game of Thrones’ season may have dimmed expectations, but the prequel is excellent

There was a time when HBO’s Game of Thrones – hugely popular, incredibly dramatic, and massively ambitious - was the definitive pop culture work of the era. But, in the show’s final season, all that ambition came tumbling down. When a prequel, House of the Dragon, was announced, the excitement in the long wait for its release was tempered by scepticism. Would showrunners Ryan Condal and Miguel Sapochnik learn from the failures of Game of Thrones, or were they too destined to crash and burn?

Thankfully, House of the Dragon is a resounding success, building on the failures of its predecessor to deliver a hard-hitting drama with powerful performances, thrilling twists, and a solid storyline. 

Based on George RR Martin’s book Fire and Blood, House of the Dragon is set roughly 200 years before the events of Thrones and opens just as the peaceful reign of King Viserys Targaryen I (Paddy Considine) is drawing to its quindecennial. When the line of succession is called into question, the kingdom quickly falls into pandemonium as the houses of Targaryen, Hightower, and Velaryon begin a deadly dance for power.

The sheer excellence of the new show’s production is immediately apparent. House of the Dragon was in development for three years and the budget seems substantially higher than the old show. But the time and the money HBO poured into the series pays off handsomely. 

From the earliest moments of the season, as when Rhaenyra Targaryen, the oldest daughter of King Viserys, soars into the skies on her majestic dragon Syrax and King’s Landing stretches out below as the grand Targaryen theme swells, the technical mastery is clear. The long wide shots, the realistic CGI dragons, the colourful visual design of the setting and the intricate royal leather of the costumes bring the world of Westeros to life. The special effects have improved, as have the props and the shooting locations. The cinematography, both more ambitious and more effective, takes full advantage of these elements to its great benefit.   

The cast does not let this technical prowess go to waste. Matt Smith is magnetic as the brutal Daemon Targaryen, who is both alarmingly vicious and, occasionally, surprisingly sympathetic. Smith has the presence to hold his own in scenes, even when barely speaking. 

A bright and brave Milly Alcock plays Rhaenyra as a child with particular distinction, while Emma D’arcy steps in as an older Rhaenyra – one more experienced and mature – flawlessly.

Special mention must also go to Paddy Considine, who imbues Viserys with virtue, endurance, and selfless devotion to his family that proves captivating. 

The antagonists are equally engaging, with Olivia Cooke biting into the venomous, neurotic Alicent Hightower with relish, and Rhys Ifans giving a cunning turn as the enigmatic and brilliant Otto Hightower.

The result is a series that demands your attention and rewards it.

While later Game of Thrones stumbled by jumping too quickly and too haphazardly from storyline to storyline, House of the Dragon pulls off the remarkable feat of spanning over 20 years in just 10 episodes without being nearly as torturous. There are issues, sure – there is bound to be some confusion when the audience has to adjust to a sudden time skip and new actors in old roles – but two major factors make the difference. 

Game of Thrones, especially later on, sprawled out to its detriment. Many separate stories were running in parallel and, in the show's haste to wrap up, were promptly abandoned. House of the Dragon, by contrast, narrows the scope effectively. The pacing of House of the Dragon is also more effective, moving more efficiently and sprinkling more action into the first season as it nears its tragic climax.

Surprisingly, though it goes for ‘bigger and better’ in many ways, House of the Dragon is also more restrained in others. Both the violence and the ‘ick factor’ – two characteristic qualities of Game of Thrones - have been toned down. The new show does not shy away from cringe-inducing family plotlines, but it hasn’t revelled in its more grotesque elements as much as the older one did. Whether this makes House of the Dragon more mature or less daring will come down to individual taste.

So far, House of the Dragon has lived up to its billing as the heir to the throne of the TV landscape. It has delivered on both the promises of its title – weaving together a tale of the mythical creatures and the complicated human family that bears the beasts’ names – in an exhilarating manner. It may also have saved the Game of Thrones franchise.  

The first season of the show surpassed expectations and has been a sensation on debut. Over time, like Game of Thrones, it may continue to build its audience through positive word of mouth. The show has left us wanting more. And this time, though we may wait two more years for the next season, at least we wait with optimism. 

This article was written for Stripe, bdnews24.com's page for coverage on culture and society from a youth perspective.