10 Things that Make Absolutely No Sense About ‘House of the Dragon’

HBO’s ‘House of the Dragon’ dives deep into the fiery Targaryen dynasty, serving as a prequel to the iconic ‘Game of Thrones’. Set nearly 200 years before Daenerys Targaryen’s rise, the show explores a brutal civil war known as the Dance of the Dragons, packed with political intrigue, dragon battles, and family drama. With stunning visuals, a gripping score, and a talented cast, including Matt Smith as Daemon Targaryen and Emma D’Arcy as Rhaenyra Targaryen, it’s a feast for fantasy lovers.

Yet, despite its ambition, the series stumbles in ways that frustrate viewers. From inconsistent character motivations to baffling plot choices, certain elements feel disjointed or outright confusing. Below, I break down ten aspects of ‘House of the Dragon’ that don’t quite add up, leaving audiences puzzled about the show’s narrative and character arcs.

10. Dragons Lack Personality

Dragons are central to the Targaryen legacy, yet in ‘House of the Dragon’, they feel like props. Unlike ‘Game of Thrones’, where Drogon, Rhaegal, and Viserion had distinct traits and bonds with Daenerys, these dragons are barely fleshed out. They appear for battles or dramatic moments but lack emotional depth or connection to their riders.

This missed opportunity weakens the stakes. A dragon’s death, like Arrax’s in Season 1, should hit hard, but without personality, it’s just a visual spectacle. The show could’ve shown riders training or bonding with their dragons to make these creatures feel alive, not just plot devices.

9. Inconsistent Consequences for Actions

Actions in ‘House of the Dragon’ often lack repercussions, which undercuts the story’s weight. For example, a character commits a brutal murder at a public event, yet the powerful family affected barely reacts. In ‘Game of Thrones’, such an act would’ve sparked revenge or political fallout, but here, it’s brushed off.

This inconsistency makes the world feel less real. The show sets up a gritty, high-stakes universe, but when major events—like cold-blooded killings—don’t ripple outward, it feels like the writers prioritize drama over logic, leaving viewers confused about the rules.

8. Time Jumps Disrupt Character Growth

Season 1’s frequent time jumps, sometimes spanning years, make it hard to connect with characters. We see Rhaenyra and Alicent Hightower age through different actors, but their motivations and relationships shift abruptly off-screen. This leaves gaps in their development that feel jarring.

While the jumps cover necessary ground, they sacrifice emotional depth. A few scenes showing key moments—like Rhaenyra’s evolving bond with her children—could’ve grounded their arcs. Instead, viewers are left piecing together why characters act the way they do.

7. Otto Hightower’s Weak Presence

Otto Hightower, played by Rhys Ifans, is the Hand of the King, a role that should command authority like Tywin Lannister in ‘Game of Thrones’. Yet, Otto comes across as soft-spoken and ineffective, lacking the cunning or gravitas to justify his position. His schemes drive the plot, but his delivery feels flat.

This undermines the political intrigue. A sharper, more imposing Otto could’ve made the power struggles in the Red Keep more compelling. Instead, his muted presence leaves viewers wondering why anyone listens to him.

6. Lack of Emotional Connection

The show struggles to make viewers care about its characters. Unlike ‘Game of Thrones’, where figures like Tyrion Lannister or Arya Stark had rich backstories and evolving relationships, most Targaryens in ‘House of the Dragon’ feel one-dimensional. Their motivations—survival and power—lack nuance.

This emotional disconnect weakens the drama. For instance, a major loss in Season 2 barely affects the character involved, leaving audiences detached. Deeper personal moments or quieter scenes could’ve built stronger bonds with viewers.

5. Pacing Issues in Season 2

Season 2 feels like a filler arc, stretching the story thin to save budget for future battles. Unlike the tighter pacing of ‘Game of Thrones’ early seasons, ‘House of the Dragon’ lingers on repetitive council meetings and dialogue that recaps what viewers already know. This slows the momentum of the civil war.

The sluggish pace frustrates because it prioritizes setup over substance. Cutting some redundant scenes and focusing on character-driven conflicts could’ve kept the energy high and the plot engaging.

4. Underdeveloped Supporting Characters

Supporting characters like Larys Strong or Corlys Velaryon have potential but remain shallow. Larys, a schemer akin to Littlefinger, lacks the charisma or unpredictability that made his ‘Game of Thrones’ counterpart memorable. Similarly, Corlys’s role as a naval powerhouse feels underused.

This flatness hurts the world-building. Rich supporting characters could add layers to the main conflict, showing how the war impacts beyond the Targaryens. A few standout moments for these figures would make the story feel more alive.

3. Unconvincing Character Motivations

Some character actions feel forced to serve the plot. For instance, a knight’s sudden violent outburst at a wedding comes out of nowhere, with no buildup to justify the shift. This makes the moment feel like shock value rather than a natural outcome of his arc.

Such choices break immersion. The show could’ve planted seeds—like subtle hints of jealousy or rage—to make these shifts believable. Without them, characters feel like pawns moved for drama, not people with clear drives.

2. Simplified Political Intrigue

The court intrigue, a hallmark of ‘Game of Thrones’, feels watered down. While the original show wove complex schemes with far-reaching consequences, ‘House of the Dragon’ keeps most plotting within the Red Keep, focusing narrowly on the Targaryens and Hightowers. This makes the world feel small.

Expanding the scope—showing how other noble houses react or scheme—could’ve added depth. The lack of broader political stakes makes the civil war feel less epic, reducing the tension that made ‘Game of Thrones’ gripping.

1. Daemon Targaryen’s Wasted Potential

Daemon Targaryen, played by Matt Smith, is the show’s most dynamic character, a roguish warrior with charm and cunning. Yet, he often feels sidelined, moping or acting inconsistently rather than driving the story. His visions in Season 2, hinting at grand destinies, lead nowhere substantial.

This underuse frustrates because Daemon could be a standout like Jaime Lannister. Giving him clearer goals or bolder actions—like leading a daring campaign—would make him the compelling antihero the show needs, not a brooding bystander.

Which plot hole or character flaw in ‘House of the Dragon’ bugs you the most, or did I miss a glaring issue? Drop your thoughts in the comments!