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

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Jeyne Poole and as a result Harry the Heir.

That's one of the reasons the entire Winterfell/Wall plot fell a bit unsatisfying this season. And the Vale was inexistent.

Wyman Manderly and the Freys.

Brown Ben in Mereen.

The Griffs.

The Brave companions. Like Roose would have let Jaime get maimed by one of his own men.

[Le Noir Faineant]

I agree entirely about Berric and Barristan. It's pretty clear that D&D either originally intended to follow through with Berric and Barristan's arcs or just didn't plan ahead, otherwise they wouldn't have included them. I mean, why introduce Berric and the idea of resurrection if not to set up Lady Stoneheart? And why bother with Barristan if you're going to kill him off right when he starts to have more to do (serving as regent in Meereen and training his Meereneese knights)?

I really enjoyed both Ian McElhinney and Richard Dormer (though I do think that Berric should have been played by someone younger and more handsome, to provide a tragic contrast with his ravaged, worn-down body) but their inclusion amounted to very little given the screen-time spent on them. You can justify the BwB by saying that they play an important part in Arya's journey or whatever, but even so there was no reason to include Berric's resurrections.

Ultimately this is the problem with straying from the source material after three seasons. When you start making unnecessary changes after having been pretty faithful, things you've foreshadowed early on never get the payoff they deserve. If they wanted to make changes then they should have made them from the start.

I agree with all you wrote. I guess this is also a matter of budgetary concerns - nearly all of the casting choices the last few years were pretty stellar, and the action branched out considerably. Right now, we have, what seven or eight different basic sets, and probably sixty or seventy regular actors. Nothing concerning the show is cheap, and, if we look at things, it's of a scope like few TV projects, ever.

That doesn't excuse the lazy writing, but I guess we can be happy that the producers didn't cut way, way more.

[White Harbors Wrath]

Barristan I'll give you, but there's a reason there was that forced plot sending Mel to the Brotherhood to see Beric resurrected.

[Tony Inchpractice]

Stannis.

[Ser Oromus Locke]

Don't know why people have this obsession with Weyman Manderly. As for the absence of Northern Revenge this season, with at least two Northern Lords being cast for S6, I'm pretty sure that the Great Northern Conspiracy may still happen, but that Stannis was in the way of writing that more streamlined, hence why they offed Stannis in S5, so the Bolton's can be ended by the North in S6. Otherwise you get mixed conflicts with underdeveloped Northern Lords and Stannis. This works better I'd reckon.

[White Harbors Wrath]

Probably because his portion of the story was some of the most compelling, well written material in Dance?

[averde]

The major characters are in the show.

I can't think of anyone left that doesn't have a work around the show could come up with, not that I like that.

[Aemon's counsel]

Don't know why people have this obsession with Weyman Manderly. As for the absence of Northern Revenge this season, with at least two Northern Lords being cast for S6, I'm pretty sure that the Great Northern Conspiracy may still happen, but that Stannis was in the way of writing that more streamlined, hence why they offed Stannis in S5, so the Bolton's can be ended by the North in S6. Otherwise you get mixed conflicts with underdeveloped Northern Lords and Stannis. This works better I'd reckon.

I'm not sure, but it might be because:

1. He's hugely entertaining and has some brilliant lines ("Though mayhaps this was a blessing. Had he lived he would have grown up to be a Frey".)

2. He gets revenge on the hated Freys for the Red Wedding in a way that's gruesome, memorable and poetic.

3. The revelation that his loyalty to the Boltons and Lannisters is just a ruse and that he's actually still loyal to the Starks is a huge 'fist pump' moment and the first time we've had reason to feel hopeful about House Stark's future since before the Red Wedding.

So, yea, there's that.

[Ser Oromus Locke]

I reread the White Harbor/Manderly bits a while back and didn't find them entertaining. I found it a huge distraction from the actual plot and Manderly to be.. well.. boring.. Certainly, the "Oh Yay! He's a goodguy!"-moment was entirely lost on me, as I never once thought he actually sided with the Bolton/Lannister-Alliance considering "The North Remembers" being a major theme..

You didn't feel hopeful about House Stark when Arya got to the HoBaW, you didn't feel a cheer when Bran met Coldhands? I could give you Sansa, because even in LF's clutches her true destiny wasn't really clear.. But it was at least a bit better at the Eyrie then in KL, that's for certain.

"Brilliant lines" are wasted on the show.. We only get a handful and some of the better ones were show inventions to be frank. To me, Manderly is just a side-character. Yes, he gets revenge on the Frey's in a very clunky way (I'm sure he has nobody fooled), but another lord could easily do that in Season 6. Manderly isn't necessary. Just as unnecessary Arianne and Young Griff apparently are.

[Jon Fossoway]

Some minor characters like Dacey Mormont, Mors Umber, Groleo, Rodrik Harlaw, Jason Mallister.

They aren't very important to the main arcs but it would have been cool to see em.

[Aemon's counsel]

You didn't feel hopeful about House Stark when Arya got to the HoBaW, you didn't feel a cheer when Bran met Coldhands? I could give you Sansa, because even in LF's clutches her true destiny wasn't really clear.. But it was at least a bit better at the Eyrie then in KL, that's for certain.

These were all things related to the individual Starks, not House Stark itself. Also, the further Bran, Arya et al. go down their own particular paths the less likely it is they'll ever be part of House Stark in any meaningful way again. Bran and Arya in particular are now in situations where their identity as a Stark is almost completely insignificant, and they're forced into having an almost neutral position in the struggles of the Great Houses of Westeros - Arya has to become 'no one', and once he's completed his training Bran will be as much a Stark as Bloodraven was a Targaryen. As far as I'm concerned, the prospect of them uniting and becoming 'House Stark' again in any meaningful manner is extremely small. (Sansa I'm less sure of, and of course, Jon likely isn't a Stark anyway. If anyone, it's Rickon - the one we care about least as an individual - who'll continue the official family line.)

On the other hand, the Northern Lords rebelling and scheming because of Ned and House Stark is about House Stark itself, as is Manderly trying to track down his 'liege lord' Rickon. It's actually because the Arya, Bran, and Sansa's identity as 'Stark' has been eroded along the paths they've taken that the 'North remembers' / Manderley stuff is so poignant. It shows that, despite the Starks essentially being scattered to the wind and probably lost forever, their vassals haven't forgotten them.

If it didn't work for you then that's cool - while I understand the significance of Daznak's pit, it does absolutely nothing for me emotionally. But you can't deny that the Manderley stuff makes sense dramatically and there are plenty of reasons why people like it and are disappointed it wasn't in the show.

[Ser Alex Dayne]

I agree entirely about Berric and Barristan. It's pretty clear that D&D either originally intended to follow through with Berric and Barristan's arcs or just didn't plan ahead, otherwise they wouldn't have included them. I mean, why introduce Berric and the idea of resurrection if not to set up Lady Stoneheart? And why bother with Barristan if you're going to kill him off right when he starts to have more to do (serving as regent in Meereen and training his Meereneese knights)?

I really enjoyed both Ian McElhinney and Richard Dormer (though I do think that Berric should have been played by someone younger and more handsome, to provide a tragic contrast with his ravaged, worn-down body) but their inclusion amounted to very little given the screen-time spent on them. You can justify the BwB by saying that they play an important part in Arya's journey or whatever, but even so there was no reason to include Berric's resurrections.

Ultimately this is the problem with straying from the source material after three seasons. When you start making unnecessary changes after having been pretty faithful, things you've foreshadowed early on never get the payoff they deserve. If they wanted to make changes then they should have made them from the start.

I don't agree at all I mean yes, at the time I was pissed and shocked that they killed Barristan but the more I thought about the more I think It needed to happen, and while they could have handled the death a little better, It was necessary. In the books he's still alive but is about to begin fighting the war at Slaver's Bay and I believe that Barristan won't make it out of that battle alive and if that's true than he would have no part to play later and considering they didn't set up a war on the show they would have had to get rid of barristan somehow since there would be no material left for barristan so either way he's done, Of course I don't know this for sure it's just personal beliefs and could be completely wrong. Secondly I have to wholeheartedly disagree with you about Beric Dondarrion. If you remember in season 3 there was a scene that didn't happen in the books concerning Beric and that was when Melisandre met up with both Beric and Thoros which she never did in the books, and discover that Thoros, a red priest, can ressurect the dead. And I believe that they showed the BwB and Beric and Thoros and had them meet up with Mel not to setup lady stoneheart but to plant the seeds in Mel and show there ressurection is possible to setup for Mel's ressurection of Jon and not the ressurection of catelyn

[Dolorous Snow]

Wylla Manderly, because.

[Rhodan]

I'm not sure, but it might be because:

1. He's hugely entertaining and has some brilliant lines ("Though mayhaps this was a blessing. Had he lived he would have grown up to be a Frey".)

2. He gets revenge on the hated Freys for the Red Wedding in a way that's gruesome, memorable and poetic.

3. The revelation that his loyalty to the Boltons and Lannisters is just a ruse and that he's actually still loyal to the Starks is a huge 'fist pump' moment and the first time we've had reason to feel hopeful about House Stark's future since before the Red Wedding.

So, yea, there's that.

IMHO, Freys are bunch of snivelling caricatures that might very well be just one character. I personaly consider revenge against them one of those things in the last two books that try to feel significant but they´r hard to care about.

[Aemon's counsel]

IMHO, Freys are bunch of snivelling caricatures that might very well be just one character. I personaly consider revenge against them one of those things in the last two books that try to feel significant but they´r hard to care about.  

 

To some extent you're right about the Freys - there are plenty of them and a lot of them are little more than a mixture of cowardice, deceit, vainglory and incompetence. But they're by no means all snivelling idiots - Lame Lothar and Walder Frey himself are pretty cunning, while Black Walder has a pretty fearsome reputation. But in any case, I don't think that Martin was trying to make Manderly's revenge against the Freys hugely significant in itself - Rhaegar, Symond and Jared Frey are of little consequence in themselves. It's more significant for the fact that Manderly is rebelling against the Lannister loyalists and rubbing it in Roose Bolton's face without him even knowing.

[James of the Blackwater]

Faegon and JonCon?

[Hos the Hostage]

I've no complaints about characters being cut. I only hate the characters being added. I'm more angry at the creation and development of the character Olly than at the cutting of Brown Ben, Belwas, Stoneheart, Arianne, Quentyn all together.

I understand they need to streamline storylines and that would mean sacrificing some favorite minor characters. But cut those characters to insert sub-standard stuff to the vital storyline of a main character? Just no.

[Lady Blizzardborn]

Tysha.  They don't need her in person but the truth about her was the ENTIRE REASON Tyrion bothered confronting his father and ended up killing him.  Arguments can be made for just about every other cut, but this is crucial to Tyrion's character.  Without that bit it looks like he killed Tywin over Shae, and that's really pretty pathetic.

 

I also think Strong Belwas should have been in there, as well as Arianne and Aegon, and the real Tyene.  And the Manderlys.  I love the Manderlys!  Val, Dalla, and the baby should have stayed too.  All they needed was two scenes for Dalla and two or three for the baby.

[The King Of Cooked Steak]

Arianne... the Dorne storyline became so fucked without her.

[winterfellbeyondthewall]

Arianne... the Dorne storyline became so fucked without her.

 

I agree. 

 

Also apart from the obvious such as LSH, I'd go with Stannis. Though I don't believe, that he truly is dead now, I might imagine how hard it will prove replacing his story arc if he lives on in the books.