Would it have been possible to adapt all of the storylines left out?

[Victarious2]

- Jon Connington and Young Griff
- Lady Stoneheart
- Arianne Martell and Quentyn Martell
- Victarion Greyjoy and Aeron Grejoy
- Garlan Tyrell and Willas Tyrell

Book readers have been complaining about all of these characters being cut, but how would it have been possible to include all of them to begin with?  Even with 8 full seasons there wouldn't have been enough time to flesh them out.

[Good Guy Garlan]

• Jon Connington and Young Griff: Nope. That plot line is convoluted as hell in the books as it is, they would've had to set up a million things for it to make sense.
• Lady Stoneheart: Yes. They had Brienne spend an entire season looking up at a tower, they might as well had her do something related to Stoneheart. 
• Arianne and Quentyn: Yes. Include Arianne instead of the Sand Snakes and Dorne gets 100% better. Tyrion spent a whole season telling bad jokes with Missandei and Grey Worm, he could've dealt with the arrival of Quentyn and the dragon theft.
• Victarion and Aeron Greyjoy: No. Yara needed something to do since they accelerated Stannis' plot line. Although, I could see Victarion working if they had set him up earlier, say in season 2-3 in the role of Dagmer. 
• Garlan and Willas: No. They may be important in Winds as Martin says, but so far the story works just fine without them. 

[Nevets]

JonCon and Young Griff:  Aegon is important ( I think).  I think there was enough wasted space he could probably have been fitted in.

Lady Stoneheart:  I didn't really miss her.  She has a relatively small part (at least for now).  It probably wasn't worth bringing back Michelle Fairley for it.

Arianne and Quentyn:  Given the fubar that was Dorne, anything would have been better.  And Arianne is the fulcrum around which the Dorne story revolves in the books.  So her absence leaves a big hole.  Quemtyn is disposable, though.  Although a minimal presence would have been nice.

Victarion and Aeron:  Don't miss them in the least.

Garlan and Willas:  Having them at least as characters (even if off-stage) would have been good, so they didn't have to shoehorn everything onto Loras (like Sansa and Cersei's marriage proposals).  Willas hasn't even appeared yet in the books, so all you would need to do is just mention his name instead of that of Loras.  

[Cridefea]

On 20/2/2017 at 0:04 PM, Victarious2 said:

- Jon Connington and Young Griff
- Lady Stoneheart
- Arianne Martell and Quentyn Martell
- Victarion Greyjoy and Aeron Grejoy
- Garlan Tyrell and Willas Tyrell

Book readers have been complaining about all of these characters being cut, but how would it have been possible to include all of them to begin with?  Even with 8 full seasons there wouldn't have been enough time to flesh them out.

Yes, probably there wouldn't have been time.

But I agree with @Good Guy Garlan : there was time for LSH, it would have been a better plot for Brienne and a big twist for the audience. Same for Dorne plot, I didn't like it so much and Arianne could have done something better for it .

 And I don't know, maybe Young Griff, too.

[Meera of Tarth]

3 minutes ago, Cridefea said:

Yes, probably there wouldn't have been time.

But I agree with @Good Guy Garlan : there was time for LSH, it would have been a better plot for Brienne and a big twist for the audience. Same for Dorne plot, I didn't like it so much and Arianne could have done something better for it .

 And I don't know, maybe Young Griff, too.

I completely agree. There was no reason not to show LSH with Brienne and Jaime. They even foreshadowed LSH during the season. It would have been challenging.

[Dragon in the North]

Technically, they could have included all of the storylines from the books if they wanted to, especially if the went with Martin's idea to produce three seasons out of AFFC/ADWD. The question isn't what storylines they can include, but what storylines they should include.

Jon Con and Young Griff: As Good Guy Garlan said, their storyline is too convoluted. Daenerys already has many obstacles facing her in Westeros. There's no point in adding one more

Lady Stoneheart: I was excited when she first appeared at the end of Storm and thought about the possibility for her character. Imagine my disappointment when, two books later, she has still failed to do anything that would warrant bringing back a main character from the dead. It may have been a mistake to cut her. She may end up playing an important role in the story, but as of right now, cutting her makes sense. Merging Brienne's storyline with Sansa's was the right way to go. Another option would have been to give her a fraction of her Feast arc and merge storylines with the Hound.

Arianne and Quentyn Martell: I wish they had cut Dorne entirely, but if they had to include it, I wish they had cast Arianne as well as Doran and Tyrstane. She was the only Dornish character in the books that comes close to be compelling. Quentyn is a definite cut. Complete waste of time.

Victarian and Aeron Greyjoy: Aeron was cast and was the priest that "baptized" Euron in season 6. Victarian may have worked, but I like the way the Greyjoy plot is unfolding in the show, so no complaints here.

Willas and Garlan: They could have been cast, but they would have been unnecessary additions.

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I completely agree. There was no reason not to show LSH with Brienne and Jaime. They even foreshadowed LSH during the season. It would have been challenging.

When did that happen?

[Meera of Tarth]

12 hours ago, Dragon in the North said:

 

When did that happen?

wow, all season 6 was foreshadowing LSH's arrival, like reminding us of Catelyn after threee seasons never being mentioned before (except in s4 in one scene) by Edmure, Walder Frey......and normally people are not heavily mentioned if theyr are not going to appear again (it has happened before with Meryn Trant, the Hound, and in s5 with Gendry who will appear again in s7....). One thing was to remind us of the arc of the character (we could say this for Edmure) but not for Walder Frey's scene who we know, everyone knows, who he was because of the Red Wedding Episode (a fan favourite even casual viewers know about). With Walder Frey they were focusing on how she was killed....

We also have Jon's resurrection, which perfectly fits the death theme of the season, and Beric returns (that he also resurrected), not to mention the BrotherHood in general returns with a darker vibe, and Lem Lemoncloak, who had not appeared before.

more here on this page and beyond: 

 

 

[Dragon in the North]

5 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

wow, all season 6 was foreshadowing LSH's arrival, like reminding us of Catelyn after threee seasons never being mentioned before (except in s4 in one scene) by Edmure, Walder Frey......and normally people are not heavily mentioned if theyr are not going to appear again (it has happened before with Meryn Trant, the Hound, and in s5 with Gendry who will appear again in s7....). One thing was to remind us of the arc of the character (we could say this for Edmure) but not for Walder Frey's scene who we know, everyone knows, who he was because of the Red Wedding Episode (a fan favourite even casual viewers know about). With Walder Frey they were focusing on how she was killed....

Using that logic, Ned should have also been resurrected from the dead, given the amount of times his name was mentioned. The same goes for Tywin, Renly, Stannis, Myrcella, Oberyn, etc. Mentioning a character and how they die is in no way foreshadowing said character's resurrection. And no, book knowledge doesn't matter when it comes to foreshadowing. In order for foreshadowing to work, it would have to come from the show, and there was no indication that Catelyn was going to be resurrected.

[Meera of Tarth]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

Using that logic, Ned should have also been resurrected from the dead, given the amount of times his name was mentioned. The same goes for Tywin, Renly, Stannis, Myrcella, Oberyn, etc. Mentioning a character and how they die is in no way foreshadowing said character's resurrection. And no, book knowledge doesn't matter when it comes to foreshadowing. In order for foreshadowing to work, it would have to come from the show, and there was no indication that Catelyn was going to be resurrected.

I pointed to you the reasons why I think she was going to appear in the eyes of many viewers.

The examples you mention have nothing to do with LSH. In the books they do not come back from the dead, so being mentioned by name can't be considered foreshadowing. With LSH, on the contrary, it could be considered, given that she reappears in the books: it's different.

The same season also mentioned wildfire during the season at least a couple of times (like Catelyn's death) and it was considered foreshadowing by many viewers/critics, so I think it's pretty reasonable to think the hints I mentioned would have been considered foreshadowing in case she had appeared.

[maudisdottir]

None of them with the possible exception of Arianne.  Those other characters aren't necessary, especially ones like Garlan (whose been in a handful of scenes) or Willas (who hasn't yet made an appearance after five books). There are already enough characters to keep track of, without adding in more offscreen that viewers are going to need to remember for 5+ years without them doing anything yet (not talking about book readers).

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

I pointed to you the reasons why I think she was going to appear in the eyes of many viewers.

The examples you mention have nothing to do with LSH. In the books they do not come back from the dead, so being mentioned by name can't be considered foreshadowing. With LSH, on the contrary, it could be considered, given that she reappears in the books: it's different.

The same season also mentioned wildfire during the season at least a couple of times (like Catelyn's death) and it was considered foreshadowing by many viewers/critics, so I think it's pretty reasonable to think the hints I mentioned would have been considered foreshadowing in case she had appeared.

As I said, book knowledge doesn't matter. All of the reasons you've given come from knowing what happens in the books. Foreshadowing needs to come from the show itself. There was nothing to indicate that Catelyn would be resurrected, other than the possibility of resurrection itself. Viewers learned that resurrection were performed by red priests/priestesses. That's why Jon's resurrection worked and wasn't deus ex machina. When he died, there was a red priestess on site who had previously taken a special interest in him. When Catelyn died, there was not a red priest/priestess in the area, nor had one taken any interest in her. I don't even believe Beric or Thoros even mentioned her name. Catelyn's death was brought up in order to motivate Brienne, to develop Sansa's and Littlefinger's characters.  I don't understand what you expected. Did you think that the showrunners would make sure not to mention Catelyn again after season 3 just so people wouldn't assume Lady Stoneheart would appear? That's not logical. 

[Meera of Tarth]

1 hour ago, Dragon in the North said:

As I said, book knowledge doesn't matter. All of the reasons you've given come from knowing what happens in the books. Foreshadowing needs to come from the show itself. There was nothing to indicate that Catelyn would be resurrected, other than the possibility of resurrection itself. Viewers learned that resurrection were performed by red priests/priestesses. That's why Jon's resurrection worked and wasn't deus ex machina. When he died, there was a red priestess on site who had previously taken a special interest in him. When Catelyn died, there was not a red priest/priestess in the area, nor had one taken any interest in her. I don't even believe Beric or Thoros even mentioned her name. Catelyn's death was brought up in order to motivate Brienne, to develop Sansa's and Littlefinger's characters.  I don't understand what you expected. Did you think that the showrunners would make sure not to mention Catelyn again after season 3 just so people wouldn't assume Lady Stoneheart would appear? That's not logical. 

and in the books we don't expect Beric to be there and later we learn what happened. So, as an adaptation, being the BWB on screen again (apart from her being mentioned and us reminded of how she died etc out of a sudden) makes viewers believe it could happen and is not far-fetched at all to think that. See, the thread I posted before had 60 pages. So yes, people really expected her to appear. The actor who played Lem teased fans about that and the press reacted to it. It's not just me who thought that. (just one example)

so until George said she was not coming many people expected her to appear finally on s6, when actually could have made a lot of sense and until ep10 would have fit perfectly the narrative the SHOW was telling.

I have nothing more to add on that topic. To me and many fans it was perfectly logical to assume there were a lot of chances to her appearing.

[Dragon in the North]

1 hour ago, Meera of Tarth said:

and in the books we don't expect Beric to be there and later we learn what happened. So, as an adaptation, being the BWB on screen again (apart from her being mentioned and us reminded of how she died etc out of a sudden) makes viewers believe it could happen and is not far-fetched at all to think that. See, the thread I posted before had 60 pages. So yes, people really expected her to appear. The actor who played Lem teased fans about that and the press reacted to it. It's not just me who thought that. (just one example)

so until George said she was not coming many people expected her to appear finally on s6, when actually could have made a lot of sense and until ep10 would have fit perfectly the narrative the SHOW was telling.

I have nothing more to add on that topic. To me and many fans it was perfectly logical to assume there were a lot of chances to her appearing.

Yes, book readers expected her to appear because Lady Stoneheart was in the books. Show watchers, on the other hand, didn't expect her, because the show didn't provide any reason for them too. Conversely, when Jon Snow died, book readers and show watchers alike knew that Jon was coming back, due to foreshadowing from the previous seasons I'm not saying that they couldn't have included her, because they could have. All I'm arguing is that there was no hinting or foreshadowing of her appearance. Book readers read into certain details and got their hopes up, but there is no concrete foreshadowing of Lady Stoneheart in the show. 

[Meera of Tarth]

19 minutes ago, Dragon in the North said:

Yes, book readers expected her to appear because Lady Stoneheart was in the books. Show watchers, on the other hand, didn't expect her, because the show didn't provide any reason for them too. Conversely, when Jon Snow died, book readers and show watchers alike knew that Jon was coming back, due to foreshadowing from the previous seasons I'm not saying that they couldn't have included her, because they could have. All I'm arguing is that there was no hinting or foreshadowing of her appearance. Book readers read into certain details and got their hopes up, but there is no concrete foreshadowing of Lady Stoneheart in the show. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Dragon in the North]

6 minutes ago, Meera of Tarth said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

You're forgetting the biggest one left off that could of be adapted, the actual freakin' Northern plot in ADWD with Wyman/frey pies/Stannis rallying the North/Davos goes on a rescue mission/ Theon having time devoted to his redemption/an Jon being stabbed over the PL   

[Count Balerion]

Oh, yes. And the North remembering!

[Cas Stark]

On 2/20/2017 at 6:04 AM, Victarious2 said:

- Jon Connington and Young Griff
- Lady Stoneheart
- Arianne Martell and Quentyn Martell
- Victarion Greyjoy and Aeron Grejoy
- Garlan Tyrell and Willas Tyrell

Book readers have been complaining about all of these characters being cut, but how would it have been possible to include all of them to begin with?  Even with 8 full seasons there wouldn't have been enough time to flesh them out.

The show should rightly focus on the main stories and characters.  It seems fairly self evident, at this point in time, that none of these characters are going to be that important to the main story....but it would certainly have been possible to include a couple, such as Lady Stoneheart, and such as substituting a single character, Arianne, for the 3 bad actress sand snakes.  The rest of them, Connington, Grif, the Greyjoys, the Tyrell brothers, Quentyn, I think were not necessary based on what appears to be the direction the story is taking...e.g. House Tyrell destroyed, etc.

[Meera of Tarth]

On 27/2/2017 at 8:36 PM, Good Guy Garlan said:

• Jon Connington and Young Griff: Nope. That plot line is convoluted as hell in the books as it is, they would've had to set up a million things for it to make sense.
• Lady Stoneheart: Yes. They had Brienne spend an entire season looking up at a tower, they might as well had her do something related to Stoneheart. 
• Arianne and Quentyn: Yes. Include Arianne instead of the Sand Snakes and Dorne gets 100% better. Tyrion spent a whole season telling bad jokes with Missandei and Grey Worm, he could've dealt with the arrival of Quentyn and the dragon theft.
• Victarion and Aeron Greyjoy: No. Yara needed something to do since they accelerated Stannis' plot line. Although, I could see Victarion working if they had set him up earlier, say in season 2-3 in the role of Dagmer. 
• Garlan and Willas: No. They may be important in Winds as Martin says, but so far the story works just fine without them. 

yes for LSH, and Tyrion with Quentyn would have been more intersting in s5 and s6, and of course Arianne instead of the Snakes.

[The Arthur Smith]

20 hours ago, Meera of Tarth said:

yes for LSH, and Tyrion with Quentyn would have been more intersting in s5 and s6, and of course Arianne instead of the Snakes.

Have to disagree here. Quentyn is merely a plot device for Dorne and Dany's storyline to fold and Arianne is more connected to fAegon's plot which like Good Garlan explained, the plot is convoluted to be in the show. I agreed that they would make Dorne more interesting, but in terms of how they are too relate to fAegon's storyline, it's best that they do not appear on the show.

Heck if anything, the show might as well mess up Arianne by making her the "bad pussy" considering her nature.