Jump to content

Which character do you think the show has left out will be the biggest mistake by D&D for not including them?


Salvador

Recommended Posts

Coldhands is just another resurrected corpse, warged by the three-eyed-crow, so I don't see what's so special about this character. Essentially Coldhands is the three-eyed crow.

I don't think D&D will be making any 'mistakes' when it comes to cutting characters for the show, because this is their version of the story, the characters they include are the ones relevant to this version of events. I'd have liked to see Arianne, but again I do see the logic in cutting her.

That's all just speculation re: Coldhands. Whether or not he serves any greater purpose in the story, he would've made Bran and Co.'s journey north so much more mysterious and interesting. Instead we got a gnome throwing grenades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Stoneheart. I don't care about people claiming "oh she is not important to the endgame, D&D know what they're doing". This series isn't about the endgame only, it is about epic scenes and memorable characters. She would have worked very well on the TV show

Memorable mentions: Aegon Targaryen, Euron Greyjoy, Wyman Manderly. Other characters who would've added a lot of complexity to the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lady Stoneheart, obviously. Just goes to show how biased and clueless D&D are.

To me, I'm more than pleased there is no Lady Stoneheart...there was much to much emphasis on the living character in any case and the fact of the matter is, there are more than enough vengance and retribution characters already on cast in GoT....shucks even Ellaria from what I've seen, heard and read seems to be cast this year as a v&r character, how many more are necessary...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of their cuts I hate seem like for Fanfiction purposes rather than honest production issues/problems like they claim.



Lady Stoneheart? Their excuse was Michelle Fairley was so popular they cant bring her back for one or two scenes, which is BS. The real reason probably is like a lot of the fans that hate Stoneheart plot, it takes away from the impact of the RW. Thats Georges Story though people, not your story.



Same with Aegon. They probably will say something along the lines of the show was contracting and they couldn't possibly add too many more characters the show is different than the books blah blah blah when the real reason is they want Cersei in Kings Landing rather than Aegon, and they want a showdown with Cersei and Dany, aswell as I think they dont like the idea of Aegon basically taking all of Dany's thunder since he made it first, and he will be extremely popular whereas she will basically be a villain to him. They rather want the more obvious Cersei vs Dany, its clear Dany is the hero here, whereas with Aegon its definitely alot less clear.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realise why one of the Tyrell brother had to be cut, but both of them?

So far the books haven't made a case for actually having any other Tyrell brothers in the show, as they just haven't done anything very significant that Loras can't do instead. But to actually state that Loras is the only Tyrell son on the show was a huge mistake, logic-wise. In S3 Tywin threatens Olenna with making Loras a member of the Kingsguard, leaving Highgarden without an heir, despite the fact that the Tyrells were seemingly fine with him being in Renly's Kingsguard back in S2 (when presumably D & D hadn't decided that Loras was the sole male heir).

Also, it just seems illogical that the Tyrells (along with the Martells, who only have Trystane) wouldn't have had more children given the kind of society that Westeros is shown to be. It's really only the Starks among the show families who have a realistic number of children. (Well, the Lannisters too, since it can be presumed that Tywin would have wanted more children after Tyrion, had his wife not died.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the books haven't made a case for actually having any other Tyrell brothers in the show, as they just haven't done anything very significant that Loras can't do instead. But to actually state that Loras is the only Tyrell son on the show was a huge mistake, logic-wise. In S3 Tywin threatens Olenna with making Loras a member of the Kingsguard, leaving Highgarden without an heir, despite the fact that the Tyrells were seemingly fine with him being in Renly's Kingsguard back in S2 (when presumably D & D hadn't decided that Loras was the sole male heir).

Also, it just seems illogical that the Tyrells (along with the Martells, who only have Trystane) wouldn't have had more children given the kind of society that Westeros is shown to be. It's really only the Starks among the show families who have a realistic number of children. (Well, the Lannisters too, since it can be presumed that Tywin would have wanted more children after Tyrion, had his wife not died.)

I facepalmed when watching that scene and at how much praise it got. As if Tywin would threaten his only big allies in that way and no way that he was as powerfull at that moment like Mad King was. This was also while Robb was still alive. So Tywin apparently wanted more enemies in form of Tyrell- Stark alliance, good on him. :drunk:

This is just one of the scenes that makes no sense on rewatch (including Tywin- Arya convo, beetle scene and so on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to pass judgement on main characters (e.g. Greyjoys, Arianne, etc.), because you never know what gets included still. From the minor characters, I think it has been a mistake to kill all Dothraki with Daenerys. Not just her followers, but also her Dothraki enemies. Drogo and Jorah killed the two most recognizable ones, so if the show includes Daenerys taking over a Khalesar, it will not include a personal pay-off. That's a shame.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...