‘House of the Dragon’ Divides Critics: A ‘Worthy Heir’ to ‘Game of Thrones’ or an ‘Unpleasant’ Prequel That ‘Doesn’t Translate’
thewrap.comNew York Times had a mixed take, writing that “the signs” of the original series are there while the “spirit is weak.” Ultimately, the spinoff “doesn’t translate into engaging drama, however.
There’s a lot of sitting around tables and talking about the troubles of the kingdom, which would be fine in moderation. But the characters are flat, stamped out on Martin’s production line of medieval fantasy types.
And when the show ventures into the field for battle or romance, the filmmaking feels rote as well, but without the overlay of zippy special effects that ‘Game of Thrones’ offered.”Entertainment Weekly’s review offered a grade of B, praising the show’s ambitions, calling its battle scenes “epic” and “gorgeous.” The review continues, “That scope is impressive, even when the details are shaky … ‘Dragon’ doesn’t soar immediately, but no ‘House’ was built in a day.”The Los Angeles Times dubbed the series a “worthy heir” to the popular original, adding that it has the deft to show a “depth of understanding of its female characters that ‘GoT’ took years to find.” Calling the fantasy epic immediately “engrossing,” the review reads: “… with the arrival of the first episode, ‘The Heirs of the Dragon,’ the hope that a new series might recapture some of the power and grandeur of its predecessor no longer seems so fanciful.”The Guardian, with a four-star rating of the show, stated that “Dragon” is a “roaring success” and that the series “looks set fair to become the game of political seven-dimensional chess that its predecessor was, designed to reward diehard fantasy fans in full measure without alienating the masses that will propel it to the top of the ratings.”Vanity Fair’s review offered that the prequel is not “Game of.
Read more on thewrap.com