Some really odd writing and creative decisions in this series (spoilers)
Aside from some odd creative decisions (the big time jump mid-season leading to recasting some actors, putting make-up on others, while keeping others looking as if they haven't aged a day), it feels like the writers don't know how to flesh out George RR Martin's 'Fire & Blood' with real characterization.
You have the show opening with an expository voiceover to dump information on the viewer, the Crabfeeder being built-up as a villain and defeated off-screen, Ser Criston Cole beating Joffrey to death in the middle of a celebration with no repercussions (he killed him during a tournament in the book), Larys being revealed as a psychopathic mastermind with zero backstory given, Laena and Harwin getting a few scenes before being confusingly roasted, etc.
Personally, I think 'House of the Dragon' should have either initiated the ten year time jump at the beginning of Season 2 and spent more time fleshing out its cast of characters, or simply began the series with Episode 6 and referred to the previous events in conversation ('Game of Thrones' rarely used flashbacks until the show's quality started to dip).
'Fire & Blood' should have been prime material for an adaptation, since its essentially a lot of ideas and framework that can be filled in with dialogue and character development. Unfortunately, considering how hotly anticipated this series was, the execution has been strangely muddled so far.
Don't even get me started on the rat, something Martin Scorsese was laughed at for including in 'The Departed' because of its blunt symbolism but is being used as an ongoing motif here...