Technology
House of the Dragon: Six Bugs to Fix in Season 3
In 2022, I was somewhat in love with House of the Dragon – I proudly made my feelings known with a poster hanging in my apartment. The writing for the show was nothing short of amazing. The plot was strong, the characters complex and the dialogue meaningful. I loved every moment I spent in this carefully designed world full of kings, queens, dragons and knights.
Two years later, after watching the second season of the show, I feel like I have a bad hangover. What happened in House of the Dragon season 2 that almost made me regret it? Why did those eight episodes feel like a waste of time?
Here are six major mistakes that made the second part of House of the Dragon an unexpected disappointment for me.
Major spoilers below for House of the Dragon season 2
Mistake 1: Stopping Rhaenyra
I’ve witnessed many major characters being ruined throughout Game of Thrones, but none lost their charm as quickly as Viserys’ daughter in the final season of House of the Dragon.
In season 1, Rhaenyra was brave and rebellious. She was not a shining example of an heir to the throne, but her flaws made her even more sympathetic. A lot of that was due to her young age, but as an adult she still had a spark that made it easy to say I was firmly Team Black.
But when did Rhaenyra become so passive, naive and annoying to the seven gods?
The makers want to portray her as responsible and noble. However, they have gone too far. Rhaenyra either doesn’t act at all or makes stupid decisions, like heading out for a dangerous meeting with Alicent in King’s Landing – who, as queen dowager, has no political power or influence over her angry sons.
Of course she has the right not to know how to fight a war. As she says, she was not trained for that. But she has her advice for that. However, throughout season 2, Rhaenyra does not listen to or even respect her advisors (except Mysaria), making it difficult to watch, let alone support.
It wouldn’t be so bad if the creators viewed Rhaenyra as a weak queen without vision – or at least acknowledged her shortcomings. However, they are convinced that they are building a strong female character, and I strongly disagree with that.
As Elisa Guimarães notes in Collider, the characters in this season are based on the simple dichotomy of peaceful women versus aggressive men. In that view, almost all male followers of Rhaenyra must be evil or wrong, while all women are noble and reasonable, which is completely boring and reinforces gender stereotypes.
As writer Gillian Flynn, author of Gone Girl and Sharp Objects, said (quote via Vulture):
I especially mourn the lack of female villains – good, powerful female villains. (…) I’m talking about violent, evil women. (…) Women have spent so many years “girl powering” ourselves – to the point of almost parodic encouragement – that we have left no room to acknowledge our dark side. Dark sides are important. They need to be cared for like pesky black orchids.
In season 3, I ask the writers to let Rhaenyra be the dragoness she is meant to embody. We’ve already discovered her good side – it’s time to give the Dark Queen back her fire, blood and sanity.
Mistake 2: Making Alicent weak
Alicent is not a particularly sympathetic character, but she is well written. Her personality is built on the solid foundation of duty, religion and obedience, but also on sadness and disappointment. She has inner strength and is the opposite of the rebellious Rhaenyra, making them exciting opponents.
Alicent’s personality crisis in the second half of season 2 is understandable – the death of little Jaehearys, war, conflict with her sons and removal from power must have shaken her to her core. However, it would have been much more compelling if she had delved radically deeper into the unrest she herself caused. Alicent trying to take her cards off the table in the season finale seems pathetic and cowardly, not noble.
In Season 3, the writers must find a way to integrate Alicent into the plot as an essential and determined player. Otherwise, they risk making House of the Dragon’s central conflict thin.
Mistake 3: Daemon’s annoying Harrenhal visions
In the first season, the writers juggled the dark and light sides of Daemon, making him an ambiguous character who you don’t know whether to love or hate. In Season 2, all that complexity is gone and replaced with madness and stupidity (as Tywin Lannister would say).
Don’t get me wrong: when it comes to magical visions and dream sequences, I’m all for it. But they should be a side dish rather than a main course. I understand Daemon is torn between his loyalty to the crown and his thirst for power, but you don’t have to drag it out for six episodes in a row. Moreover, there are so many more exciting topics on the table: the raising of armies, the defense of Harrenhal and the political unrest in the Riverlands.
Keeping Daemon (and poor Caraxes) on a leash for most of the season is inexcusable. What makes matters worse is that all these endless hallucinations lead Daemon back to where he started: bending the knee to Rhaenyra and calling her his queen.
I keep thinking how much more fun it would be if Daemon rebelled against his wife. But since we can’t count on that, the writers should at least bring him back as a man of action.
Mistake 4: Minimizing the political games
The first season concluded with Jace and Luke setting out to negotiate with House Baratheon, Stark and Arryn. The meeting with the Lord of Storm’s End did not go well, but the finale promised tense negotiations with the rulers of Winterfell and the Vale.
None of that happened. The Starks were reduced to a cameo and the Arryns had little to do. The negotiations with the Freys, the Lords of the Riverlands and the Triarchy are resolved in a few scenes without any tension. Unfortunately, the writers were more interested in ghosts and mud fights than politics – as if they didn’t remember why viewers loved Game of Thrones.
While the first season was planned as an introduction to the Civil War, in Season 2 we were promised to see the actual war. And I don’t just mean dancing dragons and knights slaughtering each other. There had to be a lot of strategy and alliance building throughout Westeros. All these things have to be back in season 3, otherwise this series will turn into a soap opera.
Mistake 5: Ignoring the side characters
While the main characters don’t get much development in season 2 (with the glorious exception of Aemond), the side characters often struggle to justify their existence.
Baela and Rhaena have had nothing to do since season 1. Criston Cole shows promise but quickly loses his fire, while Larys and Corlys’ potential as big players remains seriously underutilized. Ulf, Hugh, and Adam’s scenes are boring, and their introductions as dragon riders are completely predictable. Alyn van Hull doesn’t have a goal yet. Of all the newcomers, only Cregan Stark and Oscar Tully seem to show authentic charm.
House of the Dragon has a serious problem with its side characters. In season 3, the writers will have to be more thorough and inventive to breathe life into them, as they have little substance at this point.
Mistake 6: Relying too much on Aegon’s prophecy
When the makers decided to bring back the story of a Song of Ice and Fire in season 1, I immediately became tense. It was risky to remind viewers of the poorly received Game of Thrones finale. Additionally, the prophecy may have unnecessarily dominated the plot while being used to justify the character’s actions.
As I predicted, the writers seem fixated on a Song of Ice and Fire in Season 2, with the final episode providing solid proof of that claim. If the creators wanted to weave prophecy into the Targaryen civil war, they should use it as a sprinkle – and not exploit it as much as possible.
George Martin’s universe is all about power, politics, survival and human passions rather than magic. I’d rather see Daemon or Rhaenyra make decisions based on their political motivations rather than visions and omens. This is necessary if the writers want to make them robust leaders for Westeros.
