Look, we all have complicated feelings about Game of Thrones. The first few seasons are some of the best television ever made, and then something shifted — maybe it was the source material running out, maybe it was the showrunners having less to work with, maybe it was just the law of diminishing returns hitting hard. By the end, a lot of people felt like the show had betrayed the story it had spent years building up. Characters made decisions that didn’t quite make sense. Storylines wrapped up too quickly or unsatisfyingly. The political intrigue that made the early seasons so compelling gave way to spectacle and shock value. House of the Dragon had an interesting opportunity here: to learn from what didn’t work in the original series and come back with a show that understood what made Game of Thrones great in the first place.
Respecting the Complexity of Your Characters
One of the biggest mistakes Game of Thrones made in its later seasons was oversimplifying characters. Complex people with complicated motivations became caricatures of themselves. Characters made sudden, jarring shifts in personality that felt less like character development and more like the plot needed them to move in a certain direction. Daenerys’s fall from grace in the final season is the most famous example, but it’s not the only one. Character moments started feeling like box-checking rather than genuine developments that grew out of who these people actually were.
House of the Dragon learns this lesson and does it better. Every character in the show is complicated and contradictory. Rhaenyra is a woman who believes she’s been wronged and is fighting for what’s rightfully hers, but she’s also increasingly willing to sacrifice innocent people for her cause. Alicent is motivated by genuine concern for her family’s safety and by genuine love for her children, but she’s also driven by resentment and by the manipulation of those around her. Nobody is purely good or purely evil. Nobody makes decisions for only one reason. The show trusts its audience to understand that real people are complicated, and that complexity is more interesting than simplicity.
What’s particularly impressive is how the show handles character changes over time. When Rhaenyra’s position deteriorates and she becomes more willing to use brutal tactics, it’s not a sudden shift — it’s a gradual hardening that you can see coming a mile away. You understand why she’s making these decisions even if you don’t approve of them. That’s what character development should look like, and House of the Dragon nails it in a way that the later seasons of Game of Thrones often failed to do.
Taking Time to Build to Explosive Moments
Another thing that Game of Thrones struggled with in later seasons was pacing. After the source material ran out, the show seemed desperate to hit big moments — shocking deaths, character reversals, major plot twists. The problem was that these moments often felt unearned because there wasn’t enough time spent building up to them. Characters would die, and it would feel sudden and arbitrary rather than tragic and meaningful. House of the Dragon is a show that takes its time.
Consider the tension building up to the major turning points in the show. There’s no rush. The show spends entire episodes and sometimes entire scenes just letting conversations happen, just letting relationships develop, just letting resentment and anger simmer. The result is that when things finally explode — when someone does something truly terrible — it feels weighty and consequential rather than shocking for shock’s sake. You understand exactly how we got to this moment because you’ve been watching the accumulation of small resentments and individual decisions gradually push everything toward an inevitable conflict.
This is probably most evident in the way the show handles the buildup to the civil war itself. You can feel it coming from the very first episode. The conflict is there from the beginning, in the disagreement about succession, in the way different people interpret Viserys’s choices. And the show takes its time, lets things develop naturally, lets people make choices that seem reasonable at the time but gradually add up to something catastrophic. By the time the war actually breaks out, it feels inevitable rather than sudden.
Making Political Intrigue Feel Consequential
In the best seasons of Game of Thrones, the political intrigue was the main draw. Who’s going to sit on the throne? What deals will people make? Who’s going to betray whom? That stuff was genuinely compelling because it mattered — the political decisions people made had real consequences. In later seasons, a lot of the political intrigue got sidelined in favor of spectacle. The show seemed less interested in the careful maneuvering and negotiation that made the early seasons so compelling, and more interested in dragons burning things and big battle scenes.
House of the Dragon understands that political intrigue is inherently dramatic. You don’t need big battles to make good television. You need characters who want different things, who have to make difficult decisions, who are willing to manipulate and scheme to get what they want. You need court scenes where the real conflict happens through dialogue rather than through action. The show spends a lot of time on these scenes, and they’re genuinely tense and compelling. Watching Alicent manipulate the succession, watching Rhaenyra try to hold her coalition together, watching the various factions jockey for position — that’s all fascinating television.
What’s particularly impressive is that the show doesn’t treat political intrigue as less important than military conflict. When the war finally breaks out, it’s not because political intrigue stopped being interesting — it’s because people ran out of patience with intrigue and decided to settle things with violence. But before that point, the political maneuvering is just as important, just as dramatic, and just as worthy of screen time as any battle would be. That’s a lesson Game of Thrones largely forgot by the end.
Accepting That the Story Might Not Resolve Happily
One thing that Game of Thrones struggled with was trying to give everyone a satisfying ending. The show seemed determined to make things work out okay for at least some of the characters, to find some kind of hopeful note to end on. The problem is that a story about a civil war that tears a dynasty apart isn’t really a story where everyone can get a happy ending. By trying to give people satisfying conclusions, Game of Thrones ended up making the ending feel false and unsatisfying.
House of the Dragon doesn’t have that problem because it’s telling a story where there’s no good outcome. This is a story about a family tearing itself apart. This is a story where everyone makes some good choices and some bad choices, where people try to do the right thing and it goes wrong, where people pursue their ambitions and it costs them everything. The show doesn’t seem to be trying to give you hope that things will work out. It’s showing you a tragedy unfolding, and that’s fundamentally more honest than trying to find a silver lining in the destruction.
This doesn’t mean the show is relentlessly bleak — there are moments of genuine joy and love and human connection. But those moments exist alongside the tragedy rather than trying to cancel it out. Rhaenyra and Daemon genuinely love each other, but their love doesn’t prevent them from making decisions that are disastrous for everyone involved. That complexity is much more truthful to human experience than either pure tragedy or pure optimism would be.
Trusting Your Audience to Keep Up With Multiple Storylines
By the later seasons, Game of Thrones seemed to think it needed to spell things out for the audience. Motivations became obvious. Character arcs became straightforward. The show didn’t trust that its viewers could keep track of multiple complicated threads and would explain things multiple times just to make sure everyone understood. It started treating its audience like they needed everything explained to them.
House of the Dragon assumes its audience is smart and paying attention. There are multiple parallel storylines, multiple characters with complicated motivations, and multiple political factions vying for power. The show doesn’t always stop to explain everything. It trusts you to keep up. It trusts you to understand why someone made a particular decision even if they don’t explicitly state their reasoning. It respects your intelligence as a viewer, and that respect is actually part of what makes the show so compelling. You have to pay attention. You have to think about what you’re seeing. That engagement makes you more invested in the outcome.
Conclusion: Learning From Mistakes
The biggest thing that House of the Dragon does right is that it seems to have genuinely learned from what went wrong with Game of Thrones. It takes its time. It respects its characters’ complexity. It makes political intrigue feel consequential. It doesn’t try to force a hopeful ending onto a story that’s fundamentally tragic. It trusts its audience to be smart. These are all lessons that Game of Thrones seemed to forget by the end, and House of the Dragon proves that a story set in the same world can tell a much more satisfying narrative by remembering what made Game of Thrones great in the first place.
That doesn’t mean House of the Dragon is perfect — no show is. But it does mean that the creators understood what went wrong before and were determined not to repeat those mistakes. That kind of intentionality, that willingness to learn and improve, is part of what makes House of the Dragon such a compelling piece of television. It’s not trying to be Game of Thrones reborn. It’s trying to be what Game of Thrones could have been if it had stayed true to its original vision. And mostly, it succeeds.
Discover more from Anglotees
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.