Axed Characters

[Edward the Great]

I suspect that what will happen is that tertiary characters will simply receive no explanation. Jalabar Xho, Horror, and Slobber will be there and if you know who they are supposed to be it will be cool. If not, no loss. It's something to ask the people who read the books.

Some characters ripe for the culling -

Hot Pie
Lommy

Gendry is potentially important, those two are not.

[jaeherys]

[quote name='Ouroboros' post='1589901' date='Nov 15 2008, 03.06']Getting rid of Ilyn Payne and merging the role with Sandor is a very bad idea on so many levels its amazing anyone would even suggest it. It not only affects Sansa's character...[/quote]

True that. I couldn't see Sansa crushing on the dude that lopped off her dad's head. That'd be kinda morbid.

[The Anti-Targ]

Can't think of specific names but I reckon secondary characters will be cut by 50%. Those whose individual impacts on primary characters are important will remain as distinct personalities (a la the Hound, the Mountain, Bronn), those who add a bit of character to the story will stay, like Podrick Payne, and those who play a unique role in story lines that make it through the final cut will all stay. The rest will be combo'd.

Tertiary character will be cut severely. There will be few, if any, who actually end up being named even those with speaking parts will often go nameless unless the scene calls of for one of the main players to actually use their name. Only about 2 or 3 of the Northmen who come to KL with Ned will be named characters I'd think.

For GoT Theon could be played by any cheap actor who looks the part. Then if/when series 2 is made they can look for a recognisable (albeit not an A-list) actor.

Unless John's parentage is unimportant to the major plotline, and only of interest to the dedicated fans, then the whole subplot would be dumped. They could come up with a whole different pretext for Bob's rebellion. But as I think John's parentage is of more than passing interest in the unfolding story, then I reckon everything will be in, incl the ToJ flashback. But they ought to be shown in such a way as to be blurred and disjointed, rather than as lucidly portrayed in the book.

[Lady Blackfish]

Don't think you can cut Maege Mormont, she's one of the ones that

SPOILER: ASoS

has Robb's letter about his heir.

Not knowing the story GRRM has in store, maybe they'd rather keep Galbert Glover instead, but the Mormonts seem more prominent overall.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1590561' date='Nov 16 2008, 23.31']Don't think you can cut Maege Mormont, she's one of the ones that has Robb's letter about his heir. Not knowing the story GRRM has in store, maybe they'd rather keep Galbert Glover instead, but the Mormonts seem more prominent overall.[/quote]

But no need to introduce them all in the first series aye?

[Lady Blackfish]

Anti-Targ --

I don't see the harm, because you will need [i]some[/i] northmen in the final Cat chapter of AGOT, may as well have Maege there, then you'd have a longer time to get familiar with the handful they focus on. I'd say Mormonts, Karstarks, and Boltons?

[Maltaran]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1590585' date='Nov 16 2008, 11.50']Anti-Targ --

I don't see the harm, because you will need [i]some[/i] northmen in the final Cat chapter of AGOT, may as well have Maege there, then you'd have a longer time to get familiar with the handful they focus on. I'd say Mormonts, Karstarks, and Boltons?[/quote]

I'd argue for including the Greatjon as well, but those three are the main ones - you need the Boltons for Roose's treachery, and the Karstarks so Rickard can be executed.

[Faceless Man of Braavos]

As much as I cringe at the thought of well loved characters getting the chop... its gonna happen. Don't know about anybody else, but years back on my first reading of AGOT I was referring to the appendix almost every couple of pages to wrap my head around all the characters/factions. TV viewers will not have this option.

I hope they can streamline the story, but keep the ESSENCE of it... the producers have a tough job ahead of them.

[Lady Blackfish]

[quote name='Maltaran' post='1590676' date='Nov 16 2008, 10.32']I'd argue for including the Greatjon as well ...[/quote]
I'd been thinking that he hadn't done much that he couldn't be replaced for or stood in for by someone else, but on the other hand he is one of the more memorable northmen and

SPOILER: ADWD

it seems house Umber may be important in the Starks' possible resurgence in the future books

so you're probably right. Can do without the Cerwyns and Tallharts, and maybe without the Manderlys as well? Is the part about Lady Hornwood's lands necessary? I suppose not much else fills up some of those Bran chapters in ACOK. Anyway I guess they don't have much to do with season 1.

[Maltaran]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1590791' date='Nov 16 2008, 18.29']Can do without the Cerwyns and Tallharts, and maybe without the Manderlys as well? Is the part about Lady Hornwood's lands necessary? I suppose not much else fills up some of those Bran chapters in ACOK. Anyway I guess they don't have much to do with season 1.[/quote]

You can cut the Manderly sons out, and Lord Wyman doesn't appear until the harvest feast in CoK, so that's not a problem for now.

[Rinso]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1590791' date='Nov 16 2008, 13.29']I'd been thinking that he hadn't done much that he couldn't be replaced for or stood in for by someone else, but on the other hand he is one of the more memorable northmen and

SPOILER: ADWD

it seems house Umber may be important in the Starks' possible resurgence in the future books

so you're probably right. Can do without the Cerwyns and Tallharts, and maybe without the Manderlys as well? Is the part about Lady Hornwood's lands necessary? I suppose not much else fills up some of those Bran chapters in ACOK. Anyway I guess they don't have much to do with season 1.[/quote]

Most of the northerners from Robb's host can just as well be some no-names with no lines, but with costumes and heraldy. The important ones are the Greatjon, Rickard Karstark, Roose Bolton and... that's about it. Far from hard to do.

As for the subplot with Lady Hornwood's lands, I'm afraid that it's not just a filler, because it's integral part of the treachery of Ramsay Bolton, the reason of his imprisonment and thus his connection with Theon. All of this, however, is for season two, so for now it's not something to worry about.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Rinso' post='1590812' date='Nov 17 2008, 08.06']Most of the northerners from Robb's host can just as well be some no-names with no lines, but with costumes and heraldy. The important ones are the Greatjon, Rickard Karstark, Roose Bolton and... that's about it. Far from hard to do.

As for the subplot with Lady Hornwood's lands, I'm afraid that it's not just a filler, because it's integral part of the treachery of Ramsay Bolton, the reason of his imprisonment and thus his connection with Theon. All of this, however, is for season two, so for now it's not something to worry about.[/quote]

Agreed.

The First series will be all about introducing the great houses of Stark, Lannister, Targaryen and Baratheon, and getting the audience familiar with them. And at the same time introducing the secondary houses of significance to GoT, like Tully and Arryn. As for the other houses that come to greater prominance in later books as few of them as possible should be introduced in this series. And very few if any of the houses that are basically there to make up the numbers.

One thing I think they will need to do to keep everyone up with the play on is in regards to which houses are loyal to a particular liege lord. The vassal lords could follow the same basic colour scheme for their sigils as the liege lord. All Northmen having their sigil on a white field, river lords having the red and blue wave of Tully etc. Then when a house changes it's allegience it's sigil changes colour scheme to match. The main icon for each house is the key to their respective identities so as long as they remain unchanged in the face of their changing alliances then it is not really taking much away from the whole heraldry side of things.

[Venardhi]

[quote name='The Anti-Targ' post='1591102' date='Nov 16 2008, 17.08']Agreed.

The First series will be all about introducing the great houses of Stark, Lannister, Targaryen and Baratheon, and getting the audience familiar with them. And at the same time introducing the secondary houses of significance to GoT, like Tully and Arryn. As for the other houses that come to greater prominance in later books as few of them as possible should be introduced in this series. And very few if any of the houses that are basically there to make up the numbers.

One thing I think they will need to do to keep everyone up with the play on is in regards to which houses are loyal to a particular liege lord. The vassal lords could follow the same basic colour scheme for their sigils as the liege lord. All Northmen having their sigil on a white field, river lords having the red and blue wave of Tully etc. Then when a house changes it's allegience it's sigil changes colour scheme to match. The main icon for each house is the key to their respective identities so as long as they remain unchanged in the face of their changing alliances then it is not really taking much away from the whole heraldry side of things.[/quote]
I completely disagree. Most of the heraldry is unimportant to the story, but just as far as basic common sense: no one is going to sew all new banners and tunics every time they have a new liege lord. What happens when one of the minor houses gets more powerful and takes over? Do they only then pick out their own colors to force on everyone? Let all the houses have their own damn heraldry and if people get confused, then have them carry a Stark or Lannister banner with them when necessary.

[Rinso]

What I meant with "costumes and heraldy" above was that the no-names with no lines would look familiar to us - for example, we would know that the old woman in mail armor with the green-field-black-bear tunic is Maege Mormont - but for the rest of the auditory they would just be a part of the background with none or very, very little lines. So everyone will be happy - we geeks would recognize the minor characters and the regular viewer would not be obliged to remember every single minor lord or knight, but still will feel a sense of depth of the setting, seeing all this people in the background.

[Jakob Lightbringer]

[quote name='Ouroboros' post='1589901' date='Nov 15 2008, 03.06']Getting rid of Ilyn Payne and merging the role with Sandor is a very bad idea on so many levels its amazing anyone would even suggest it.[/quote]
I did say it pains me to suggest it -- and I anticipated notable changes in the future plot as a consequence.
But the two characters serve a very similar role in the first book -- a visually scary minion of the villain, an usurpation of the notion of justice, and an undermining of the mythology of the handsome and chivalrous knight.
I agree that merging these two characters would not be a good change in the long run, but on the other hand, I don't think that altering [b]any[/b] characters could be considered a good change.
The unfortunate fact is that the all of the characters (by which I mean main characters and relatively important supporting characters) in A Game of Thrones are very rich and detailed -- but also very numerous -- and any changes made to any of them are going to be far reaching and of great consequence.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Jakob Lightbringer' post='1591918' date='Nov 18 2008, 10.28']I did say it pains me to suggest it -- and I anticipated notable changes in the future plot as a consequence.
But the two characters serve a very similar role in the first book -- a visually scary minion of the villain, an usurpation of the notion of justice, and an undermining of the mythology of the handsome and chivalrous knight.
I agree that merging these two characters would not be a good change in the long run, but on the other hand, I don't think that altering [b]any[/b] characters could be considered a good change.
The unfortunate fact is that the all of the characters (by which I mean main characters and relatively important supporting characters) in A Game of Thrones are very rich and detailed -- but also very numerous -- and any changes made to any of them are going to be far reaching and of great consequence.[/quote]

The only thing you need Ilyn Payne to do in the first series that Sandor can't do is lop people's heads off on behalf of the king. He can remain a nameless figure until you really need him. Give all other GoT appearances to Sandor. So not so much a melding of characters, but broadening the role of one and narrowing the role of the other.

[Rinso]

[quote name='The Anti-Targ' post='1592107' date='Nov 17 2008, 18.59']The only thing you need Ilyn Payne to do in the first series that Sandor can't do is lop people's heads off on behalf of the king. He can remain a nameless figure until you really need him. Give all other GoT appearances to Sandor. So not so much a melding of characters, but broadening the role of one and narrowing the role of the other.[/quote]

Payne doesn't have much more of a role than that in AGOT either way...

--

Anyway, I think that people overestimate and exaggerate the impact that the really minor character have. Heck, you can make most of them extras with costumes and still[i] nothing [/i]will be lost. I really don't see the need to merge and axe characters thus complicating the things in the long run, while many of the minor guys can just be reduced to background until you need them for a single line and then another season of background silence.

[Ran]

Ditto what Rinso says.

[pines]

I foresee a great website to support the series, explaining heraldry, vassal houses, lineage & history and such, thus immersing the audience deeper into Westeros, getting them more invested into following the story through. Ultimately many will read the books, and end up like the fanboys that we all are. ;)

The show must be streamlined enough to make sense without additional research, but with a website explaining details I don't think any characters need to be axed completely. Some characters' roles will be changed, narrowed or expanded, and no-names/extras will be performing named roles without spoken lines, but they will all be there in the background.

[Jakob Lightbringer]

[quote name='The Anti-Targ' post='1592107' date='Nov 17 2008, 17.59']The only thing you need Ilyn Payne to do in the first series that Sandor can't do is lop people's heads off on behalf of the king. He can remain a nameless figure until you really need him. Give all other GoT appearances to Sandor. So not so much a melding of characters, but broadening the role of one and narrowing the role of the other.[/quote]

But given that he performs what is arguably the single most villainous act in the first book, I really want him to be a detailed, named villain. My fear is that because he is a relatively minor character among the villains, he gets marginalized to a negligible, nameless role and the story as a whole suffers. If this is the fate of his character, then I would almost prefer for them to have another well established character perform this act in order to preserve the meaningfulness of the plot. In this particular scene, a merge with Janos Slynt might make perfect sense. (ETA: But Janos Slynt is also a relatively minor character at this point.)
On the one hand I want the plot to be as faithful as possible to the books, but on the other hand, if this means the plot suffers due to the fact that a television show cannot possibly detail all of the relatively minor characters who occasionally step into the limelight as well as a book can, then perhaps it is for the best if some minor roles are consolidated into a relatively major role so that the audience has a meaningful emotional response.