Second of His Name

There have been all kinds of spin-offs throughout television history. It's perfectly acceptable to serve up a show that's just like the original but with new characters: look at franchises like CSI or Law and Order. (Or even Star Trek: The Next Generation.) The most celebrated spin-offs seem to strike a different tone from their originals: think along the lines of Cheers and Frasier, or Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.

Through the first two weeks, it certainly seemed to me that House of the Dragon was setting out to be the first kind of spin-off. It appeared to be, first and foremost, "more Game of Thrones." Wherever a creative choice might have been made to put some separation between the two, instead the choice was made to prize continuity: we got the same music, the same sets, the same costumes. And to the degree it seems the audience was largely thirsting for "good old Game of Thrones," that was a fine choice.

After episode three, "Second of His Name," I'm beginning to suspect that House of the Dragon wants to be the second kind of spin-off after all. A grand fantasy epic for television has been done -- by Game of Thrones and many new entries to the field. And now I wonder if House of the Dragon is instead trying to be "The Crown, plus dragons."

I wrote about The Crown last year, but no short review can really capture my full experience watching it. Episode to episode, it was not unusual to find myself wondering if it was actually good, or if I was actually liking it. It was a slow burn drama, often "building" to nothing at all, in which the problems of the characters felt inaccessible at best, dull at worst. But The Crown also would serve up the occasional truly excellent episode to reward your faith in it. And all along, it featured an excellent cast from top to bottom.

House of the Dragon jumped two years in time with episode three. This followed a time jump of half a year or so between episodes one and two. This is The Crown's model, racing through decades of history to hit on only the most important moments in a generational story. Yes, the core question here seems to be "who will sit the Iron Throne?" But despite that also being one of the questions in Game of Thrones, the approach there was totally different. The odd flow of time was a major criticism of the final season -- the feeling that not as much time was passing explicitly as should be. House of the Dragon is being quite overt about telling us "these things take time."

Plus dragons, of course. This week's episode concluded with an extended battle sequence of mixed-to-good impact. There were a lot of good moments within the battle, though it ultimately couldn't carry that much weight when the opposing side had been so minimally developed over a few episodes. (And even the Targaryen side featured few characters we really know at this point.) But hey, visceral thrills to get your attention, if the slow burn royal family drama isn't doing it for you.

When I say "dragons," though, I don't mean just literally that; it's more a shorthand for "spending a lot of money on flashy visuals." This week also gave us a subplot about hunting a stag that culminated in two different CG animals featured front-and-center on screen. We also got a brief bit of action involving a wild boar... and that in particular was another strong contrast to Game of Thrones. Think back all the way to season one of that show. Robert Baratheon was fatally wounded by a boar, setting that whole story into motion. We didn't see any of that. Yes, that matched the way the story was told in Martin's original novel -- but in reality, Game of Thrones was not the kind of show that could afford to show such things that early in its run. House of the Dragon has a massive budget right out of the gate, and it's always going to put that money on the screen. (And, one assumes, kill off and/or recast its characters regularly enough to avoid spending too much of that budget on acting, as the mother show ultimately had to.)

So yes, House of the Dragon may aspire to be a staid drama about royal succession... but it's always going to dilute that with whiz-bang CG action. It surely needs to do that; the acting is the undeniable reason The Crown can get away with its slow pace and tone. The House of the Dragon cast, while fine, is certainly not at the same level of excellence. (Although, Matt Smith is in both casts.) Is it going to be good? Hard to say. Four seasons into The Crown, I can still only say, "it's good... I think."

This episode of House of the Dragon was good... I think. I'd give it a B. I might have chosen to mix a cocktail with more of this and less of that, but the show is still very much finding its way. With a second season now already confirmed, they should have all the room they need to do that.