For me, I like the political intrigue. It's also a reminder that the quest for power is never ending, and even when one wins, it's never lasting.

But, to your point, it's not that dissimilar from other quest for power dramas. I told a friend the new GoT is a bit like Succession with dragons. The quest for power is part of the human condition, which is why I think so many enjoy the stories in whatever form they are told.

> For me, I like the political intrigue.

Have you watched The Expanse? If you like faction-y stuff, it's worth checking out.

Yep, can recommend The Expanse as well. I find the end somewhat unsatisfying though. There is potential for a sequel, 500 years later or so.

Of course, and read many of the books :)

I really like Succession, but sorry, Dragons is nothing like that. There is no political intrigue, just people in costumes making fairly obvious moves.

They both seem fairly obvious, yet still enjoyable. The one thing a GoT based show has going for it though, is they have historically not been afraid to kill off major characters. That willingness to kill characters keeps the audience a bit on their toes.

Now that you mention it, I have to admit obviousness is not the distinction between Succession and Dragon. I guess the dragon characters just seem dull to me, and I don't really care about what they are up to.

I disagree. Not every narrative has to be one over some apocalyptic threat. I actually prefer the more grounded (for fantasy I suppose) story over the zombie apocalypse-adjacent White Walker stuff.

If I want to watch a history lesson, I can do that, there are some great documentaries out there. Probably produced for less money. And I would actually learn something.

But of course, there are many interesting narratives that don't involve the apocalypse. The Wire has a great one. Bladerunner is superb. The recent Black Bird was captivating, too.

Dragons though? Just boring.

I recently binge watched a series (Irma Vep) that, very tongue in cheek, addressed the malaise of "platforms" affecting film/cinema. It's a very complex work (in terms of multiple layers of readings) spanning the director's closure over his lost love (see Irma Vep 1996), a hat tip to Truffaut's Day for Night, and a very explicitly expressed concern of characters of how "content platforms" have killed cinema and mutated it to "TV" and "series". Naturally all this was said, to wrap up the irony train, on HBO's platform.

Irma Vep (2022): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13649314

Have to check it out. Not sure about the 2022 show, but the 1996 movie sounds intriguing. Don't remember anything about Day for Night, just that I found it similarly confusing as Fellini's 8 1/2. I do remember that I really liked Jules et Jim by Truffaut, but then again, it has Jeanne Moreau. I can recommend her movie Bay of Angels. It's a simple but great movie: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056846/

I really liked the 2022 -- there is a lot to chew on if you are a film buff as it is very self-referential in context of French Cinema -- but it's likely not everyone's cup of tea at the surface level. Technically, like (or surpassing) his Carlos miniseries, it is exceptional. Great acting as well. Lars Eidinger's was quite excellent imho, as was Vincent Macaigne's. (Plan to revisit the 1996, for Maggie Cheung. /g)