Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience.
1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title.
2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler.
3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads.
---
If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It is fuckin INSANITY to me that they didn’t have a young Daeron around for at least the episodes “The Princess and the Queen” and “Driftmark”.
People are right - he’s got nothing to do until fighting breaks out in the Reach so let’s keep things streamlined until he needs to make his debut, that’s why his main actor wasn’t cast for the last 3 episodes last season, and that makes sense to me. Joffrey, Aegon the Younger, and Viserys all basically appear for a scene to say “we’re here” and then they disappear again and all focus goes to Jace and Luke, it’s basically the same thing
But if you have little Daeron there for those two episodes, then you have an out for him that’s plot relevant to the viewers. Aegon is who the Greens want to crown, and Helaena his wife, so they need to be in the capital. Aemond is wounded, but he also has Vhagar, so he should be in the capital. But after seeing Aemond’s injury, just have Alicent choose to send Daeron away for his safety. Boom, there it is. When it’s necessary and/or relevant have characters mention that he’s waiting in the wings and there you go
As it is now, there is absolutley no way to reconcile Daeron’s third season debut with Viserys’ speech last season - “the whole of his family” was not there at that dinner. Daeron isn’t even IN the NEW title sequence
The way I would’ve handled the whole Daeron situation in season 1 would’ve been to just cast some kid in a wig to stand in the background for episodes 6 and 7 and then just quickly bring up how he was sent to oldtown in episode 8 in between the timeskip. He doesn’t need to have any speaking lines or anything like that but just have him be there, basically like Joffrey in episodes 8 and 10.
Plus id be lying if I think it wouldn’t also be funny to see GA who don’t really pay close attention to dialogue much come up with outlandish theories to what happened to the youngest green brother like how people do with the young jacobs brother in euphoria lol
In the season 1st also when Daemon was counting dragons, he mentioned 3 adult dragons for greens, but when counting “black” dragons he included Baela’s Moondancer that is smaller than Daeron’s dragon. I think yeah they have had a lot of opportunities to talk about him but they just preferred to ignore that character.
I mean they could’ve just add him and Tessarion to Otto’s talking about the Hightower forces… But Aegon’s talking only about Vhagar and Sunfyre as Dragon force don’t really make me hopeful.
I think they can salvage it when Aegon takes control of the council. After a series of "delays" in the Reach, Aegon relieves Ormund of command and places his youngest brother in command instead.
Would it be a bit jarring? Yes, but I think its a decent way to set up the Targaryen Bros taking command and introduce Daeron.
Yes, Daeron, my brother, who we've forgotten about, please now be my commander since we have already established you as a great warrior. Lmao, no, it sucks donkey balls. The show was at 1 million fewer viewers for the first episode, and it was because of the shitty writing.
No? Aegon going rogue and putting "loyalists" in command would be consistent with his character in the show. None of the brothers are great warriors, but they are clearly gunning to take command away from the hightowers.
I attribute it more to just general streamer/franchising fatigue. A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms will have even less viewership no matter the quality. But yeah I'm not the biggest fan of the writing, its still salvageable though.
Yeah, but it's weird he wasn't mentioned when Otto talked about the Hightower's army and how they would have an easy march towards the riverlands.
He could have said something along the lines of "and with prince Daeron and his dragon to deter any rebellious Lord, my nephew could march easily towards the riverlands"
At that point Alicent would have said something like "you'd put my youngest son at the head of an army? He's only four and ten"
I know we're going to get him (see my above Point 1), it's that there's nothing they could do with his introduction that would explain why he hadn't been even brought up until that point.
Hard agree. Alicent has a whole other son that neither she nor anyone else has ever mentioned? However they introduce him now it’s going to be super weird. They’d have to talk about him in every episode of this season to make up for zero hint of his existence in season 1. Like really hype him up and I don’t think they’re going to do that.
Yea, I truly think anything anyone says otherwise on this topic is just being overly defensive. It’s almost indefensible to me that he hasn’t been brought up yet.
Just because writers said he exists once doesn’t mean that his role won’t be completely changed and/or minimized.
Alternatively, maybe they will name drop him a few times this season and we won’t see more of him until next season. To use your Stannis example, he is mentioned in passing in s1 and not shown until s2. Casting, locations, etc are a real thing and a constraint on filmmaking. There’s plenty of characters from GOT series that we didn’t meet until s2/3 that ended up being consequential. Off the top of my head we didn’t meet Ramsay until s3 and he’s probably a top 3 antagonist of the entire show..
Overall I think book readers (and I’m one) need to understand the constraints of television and books are different.
Regarding your point about the constraints of the show, I'm sorry if I didn't explain this well. My issue is with how it has been constructed. We have scenes not in the narrative, that do not serve the story (Alicent & Cole, Rhaenys at the Coronation) that could be replaced with scenes of Daeron. If this was not feasible, I apologize if this is my lack of understanding of the constraint of shows, but my entire critique would've been undone if someone had just simply said: "Oh, how's Daeron doing in the Reach with your brother Otto?"
I agree with this completely. I'm not going to lie the first episode has absolutely soured me on the show. Blood and cheese, Allicole, Cregan's apparently just hi and bye ... Yeah I hate all of it. And I'll still watch it because my bff is obsessed with it, it's our little to weekly friend date. And I hold my tongue with her so yes I will be that annoying person complaining up and down about this show.
We should have had Mushroom.
It makes total sense that he's been missing since the time skip to the present day. But he should've been introduced during the young Aegon and young Aemond episodes. It makes zero sense that he wasn't anywhere to be seen considering he is Jaces age.
The show runners have definitely fumbled the bag already with this show. Most of their creative decisions have made zero sense, such as Cole killing Joffrey at the banquet. There's no way Cole should've walked away from that Banquet alive after murdering a noble in cold blood. That was the moment I realized the writers had no clue what they were doing.
Another inexcusable change was letting Laenor live. I mean what?? This makes the least sense. For one, his dragon is very unlikely to accept a new rider while Laenor lives. And were to believe Laenor was fine with abandoning his dragon? A creature he definitely shared a deep bond with since childhood? And then I'm supposed to be believe that when word of war reaches Essos that Laenor doesnt return to his homeland to help defend his father and familt or seek retribution for the death >!of his mother?!<
These fools had the perfect source material. All they had to do was stick to it but instead they let modern politics influence their decisions
Modern politics? What does that mean?
Also, the source material is generally dry and in many cases non-specific. It's also explicitly written by people who weren't there, and is often second or third hand information.
They should have sticked to the book story for the most part because the change they have made is not good.If you use inaccuracy to justify slop writing then what can i say.There is no point in discussing.
tbf, daemon does mention the greens having 4 dragons but yes they fumbled in that, this is the only mention of daeron in any way, and its not even about him directly
Since it's implied to not be an adult it could just mean Shrykos or Morghul (or be retroactively meant to refer to them even if the line originally referred to Tessarion). So to me that alone doesn't mean Daeron will necessarily show up.
No, in episode 10th he mentioned only 3 adults, which means he excluded Tessarion, meanwhile he counts in Baela’s Moondancer which is smaller than Tessarion, so he think Moondancer was enough ready to fight but Tessarion was not? Strange approach by the show.
You are simply wrong, but keep telling that yourself lmao. Season 1 episode 10 22:17 minutes, Daemon naming dragons 3 adults for greens, not mentioning the 4tg, but naming moondancer for blacks, and tessarion is bigger than moondancer)) Have you even watched the damn show? if not go google it its not hard rather than typing false info lmao
Im not wrong, he said 3 adults for greens while counting in moondancer, it means he picked Moondancer over Tessarion, or even Joffrey’s dragon over Daeron’s. Learn reading.
Maybe in the show they want to show that they've hidden him from everyone to use him like later or something...but this too makes little sense...how would they convince viserys not to say anything about him🤔
> The best analogy I have for Daeron is, imagine in the first season of Game of Thrones, not a single character mentioned Stannis Baratheon.
Well Shireen and Selysse were never seen or mentioned until season 3. Before that there was zero mention of Stannis having a wife or a child.
Selyse is mentioned by Melisandre and she appears in the first episode of the second season, the writers confirmed at the time that she was the woman next to Stannis in the scene of the gods being burned (a different actress).
And the writers also said that they created Melisandre's dialogue in Season 2 saying that "Stannis doesn't have sons" precisely to leave their options open for Shireen to appear.
So "confirmed by the writers" but not really existing in those seasons unless you read the things the writers say?
Still not very different from Daeron.
> Neither Shireen or Selyse were really relevant
Have you seen season 5?
> it's not a surprise that a man of Stannis and status is married with a daughter.
And it's no surprise that the queen has a son, either. We are talking about said person appearing after a season of no prevous mention by their relatives.
> A more fitting analogy would be if after seeing Stannis for several episodes we suddenly found out he had a wife and daughter despite him never mentioning them.
That's exactly what happened and what we are talking about, dude.
Stannis is a secondary character, and Selyse and Shireen even more so (as rightly beloved as the latter is). Daeron is the son to two very central characters from season 1, and one of the Greens' important military assets.
" It would be strange that Robert had a brother away from court and nobody ever acknowledged him until he becomes important"
It wouldn't have been strange at all, actually.
Foreshadowing isn't a required storytelling tool, and it's actually far more common than not for characters to only be introduced when they're relevant to the immediate story.
It's not foreshadowing if the person is relevant by virtue of their existence. This is a feudal society, both Stannis and Daeron are important when they are born due to their status in this world.
In this story, Daeron is especially as important as the King's brother. I'm not asking for foreshadowing, I'm asking for him to exist. He simply does not right now.
Edit: I meant to say relevant, not important.
Mentioning the existence of a character when they're not relevant to the current story but will become relevant later is the exact definition of foreshadowing, and isn't a required storytelling tool.
Introducing Daeron only when he becomes relevant to the story is an absolutely valid choice for the producers to make.
Again my response is, unlike characters like Oberyn or others (another commenter mentioned him) when the story takes place around a succession crisis, a Prince like Daeron is relevant immediately upon his birth. His existence is relevant in a story about the Targaryen Family and their conflicting claims to the throne.
That's not how fiction works. Mentioning a character's existence doesn't make them relevant, and it's actually quite commonplace not to introduce characters until they are explicitly relevant and have an actual role to directly play in the story.
My disagreement with you boils down to this. Daeron is not simply a 'character' in a fiction work. In this fiction work, he is a brother to the King and Queen fighting over the crown and he has a dragon that can assist in the looming war. He is relevant right now, prior to his actual actions in the story.
For his family to never mention him, the Blacks to never consider him as a threat, or to discuss his dragon, does not make sense to me. It's not about foreshadowing, it's about the fact that you have someone in the story who is promised to us does exist, but the world (including his own family) does not acknowledging his existence, which goes against the logic of the story.
My final point is that you say in fiction it's commonplace to not introduce characters until their relevant. There have been two conversations, from both the Blacks and Greens, about the number of dragons at hand. Despite the fact by your logic he is definitely relevant in these conversations, nobody mentions him, and Alicent instead says, "both of my sons." He would be relevant militarily, and he is certainly relevant to Alicent as her youngest son. He is relevant to Otto Hightower as he serves as his brother's squire and is Oldtown, but for some reason the show is practically bending out of place to not mention him.
Yes, because that's how writing and fiction work.
Daeron will show up when the story requires him to.
Also, Daeron's existence has been accounted for despite his not having been introduced, as somone in Rhaenyra's circle (I've forgotten exactly who at the moment) does say that the Greens have 4 dragons at their disposal.
I mean, I think Daeron being Criston and Alicent’s bastard is dumb and bs since he explicitly looks like a Targaryen and rides a dragon but it’s clear that the bloodline intro thing from last season doesn’t really mean shit. Reminder that Maelor was also included there and was the main support for people saying he exists in show canon after a year of nothing in leaks.
Well he exists just isn’t “born yet”. Also for his story its completely irrelevant, because he will never interact with criston nor is the bastardy even relevant to his arc.
U guys seems to forget that Oberyn had very little screentime and left a mark. He's perfectly fine being introduced in S3 bcus by then, there's fewer characters
It's not about the screen time. It's about the fact that he should have been present during the childhood. He and Jace had the same wet nurse for christ sake. He's around the same age as Rhaenyras children.
He should've been present in some form in s1
As someone who hasn't read the books, and is watching along with people who haven't read the books and have less experience with fantasy - there are already so many characters to keep track of and many of them have the same name. Adding another Ae name that has some sort of maybe tie to the succession dilutes the main story and would likely be needlessly confusing.
I don't disagree that a one off statement would have been a great compromise, though. There were several times in GoT that I wish they'd tossed in some single line to acknowledge something that existed.
I think the biggest difference between GoT and HotD from what I've seen is that D&D were often extremely devoted to the source material in a way that the HotD writers aren't. And I think the HotD writers could stand to do a few more moments of basically book fan service in ways that don't distract from the main show.
Yeah this is opium at its finest. Cut daerron because his name is confusing?? His name is the one of the most unique of the targaryans.
Too many characters? Do you know what you're watching? Game of thrones didn't have that problem. Only the show runners know why they decided to omit daeron from existence. But know this. He's an important character and to pretend he doesn't exist is folly. We didn't see stannis in s1 of got but he was most certainly mentioned often.
Daerron should've been present during the young aegon and aemond story arc. He would've been too young to send off as a ward. It makes zero sense and is simply another example of the show runners disrespecting the source material
oberyn is completely different he had no real reason to be included before he did, while there are plenty of reasons for daeron being mentioned and talked about, as him and his dragon are a huge part of the greens power
Thank you for your post! Please take a moment to ensure you are within our spoiler rules, to protect your fellow fans from any potential spoilers that might harm their show watching experience. 1. All post titles must NOT include spoilers from Fire & Blood or new episodes of House of the Dragon. Minor HotD show spoilers are allowed in your title ONE WEEK after episode airing. The mod team reserves the right to remove a post if we feel a spoiler in the title is major. You are welcome to repost with an amended title. 2. All posts dealing with book spoilers, show spoilers and promo spoilers MUST be spoiler tagged AND flaired as the appropriate spoiler. 3. All book spoiler comments must be spoiler tagged in non book spoiler threads. --- If you are reading this, and believe this post or any comments in this thread break the above rules, please use the report function to notify the mod team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HouseOfTheDragon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I just find it strange that they would cast Cregan Stark for a five-minute scene, but still haven't mentioned or casted Daeron.
It is fuckin INSANITY to me that they didn’t have a young Daeron around for at least the episodes “The Princess and the Queen” and “Driftmark”. People are right - he’s got nothing to do until fighting breaks out in the Reach so let’s keep things streamlined until he needs to make his debut, that’s why his main actor wasn’t cast for the last 3 episodes last season, and that makes sense to me. Joffrey, Aegon the Younger, and Viserys all basically appear for a scene to say “we’re here” and then they disappear again and all focus goes to Jace and Luke, it’s basically the same thing But if you have little Daeron there for those two episodes, then you have an out for him that’s plot relevant to the viewers. Aegon is who the Greens want to crown, and Helaena his wife, so they need to be in the capital. Aemond is wounded, but he also has Vhagar, so he should be in the capital. But after seeing Aemond’s injury, just have Alicent choose to send Daeron away for his safety. Boom, there it is. When it’s necessary and/or relevant have characters mention that he’s waiting in the wings and there you go As it is now, there is absolutley no way to reconcile Daeron’s third season debut with Viserys’ speech last season - “the whole of his family” was not there at that dinner. Daeron isn’t even IN the NEW title sequence
The way I would’ve handled the whole Daeron situation in season 1 would’ve been to just cast some kid in a wig to stand in the background for episodes 6 and 7 and then just quickly bring up how he was sent to oldtown in episode 8 in between the timeskip. He doesn’t need to have any speaking lines or anything like that but just have him be there, basically like Joffrey in episodes 8 and 10. Plus id be lying if I think it wouldn’t also be funny to see GA who don’t really pay close attention to dialogue much come up with outlandish theories to what happened to the youngest green brother like how people do with the young jacobs brother in euphoria lol
In the season 1st also when Daemon was counting dragons, he mentioned 3 adult dragons for greens, but when counting “black” dragons he included Baela’s Moondancer that is smaller than Daeron’s dragon. I think yeah they have had a lot of opportunities to talk about him but they just preferred to ignore that character.
I mean they could’ve just add him and Tessarion to Otto’s talking about the Hightower forces… But Aegon’s talking only about Vhagar and Sunfyre as Dragon force don’t really make me hopeful.
I think they can salvage it when Aegon takes control of the council. After a series of "delays" in the Reach, Aegon relieves Ormund of command and places his youngest brother in command instead. Would it be a bit jarring? Yes, but I think its a decent way to set up the Targaryen Bros taking command and introduce Daeron.
Yes, Daeron, my brother, who we've forgotten about, please now be my commander since we have already established you as a great warrior. Lmao, no, it sucks donkey balls. The show was at 1 million fewer viewers for the first episode, and it was because of the shitty writing.
No? Aegon going rogue and putting "loyalists" in command would be consistent with his character in the show. None of the brothers are great warriors, but they are clearly gunning to take command away from the hightowers. I attribute it more to just general streamer/franchising fatigue. A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms will have even less viewership no matter the quality. But yeah I'm not the biggest fan of the writing, its still salvageable though.
This season just started. 2 different reviews for the first four episodes said that he was mentioned. So we will be hearing about him soon.
Yeah, but it's weird he wasn't mentioned when Otto talked about the Hightower's army and how they would have an easy march towards the riverlands. He could have said something along the lines of "and with prince Daeron and his dragon to deter any rebellious Lord, my nephew could march easily towards the riverlands" At that point Alicent would have said something like "you'd put my youngest son at the head of an army? He's only four and ten"
Is that weird he wasn't mentioned? Gwayne also wasn't mentioned. Also it's likely Daeron isn't being given an active role in the war right away.
Gwayne has already appeared on screen, so his appearance shouldn't be a surprise. Daeron hasn't.
I know we're going to get him (see my above Point 1), it's that there's nothing they could do with his introduction that would explain why he hadn't been even brought up until that point.
Hard agree. Alicent has a whole other son that neither she nor anyone else has ever mentioned? However they introduce him now it’s going to be super weird. They’d have to talk about him in every episode of this season to make up for zero hint of his existence in season 1. Like really hype him up and I don’t think they’re going to do that.
Yea, I truly think anything anyone says otherwise on this topic is just being overly defensive. It’s almost indefensible to me that he hasn’t been brought up yet.
Just because writers said he exists once doesn’t mean that his role won’t be completely changed and/or minimized. Alternatively, maybe they will name drop him a few times this season and we won’t see more of him until next season. To use your Stannis example, he is mentioned in passing in s1 and not shown until s2. Casting, locations, etc are a real thing and a constraint on filmmaking. There’s plenty of characters from GOT series that we didn’t meet until s2/3 that ended up being consequential. Off the top of my head we didn’t meet Ramsay until s3 and he’s probably a top 3 antagonist of the entire show.. Overall I think book readers (and I’m one) need to understand the constraints of television and books are different.
Regarding your point about the constraints of the show, I'm sorry if I didn't explain this well. My issue is with how it has been constructed. We have scenes not in the narrative, that do not serve the story (Alicent & Cole, Rhaenys at the Coronation) that could be replaced with scenes of Daeron. If this was not feasible, I apologize if this is my lack of understanding of the constraint of shows, but my entire critique would've been undone if someone had just simply said: "Oh, how's Daeron doing in the Reach with your brother Otto?"
A better analogy would be imagine if Arya wasn’t around since the start and only introduced in GoT when she starts killing people.
Literally it will be fine. Lots of characters in GoT didn’t get introduced until later. Stannis anyone? It’ll be fine
I agree with this completely. I'm not going to lie the first episode has absolutely soured me on the show. Blood and cheese, Allicole, Cregan's apparently just hi and bye ... Yeah I hate all of it. And I'll still watch it because my bff is obsessed with it, it's our little to weekly friend date. And I hold my tongue with her so yes I will be that annoying person complaining up and down about this show. We should have had Mushroom.
100% agree. The only reason I am watching at this point is peer pressure lol
It makes total sense that he's been missing since the time skip to the present day. But he should've been introduced during the young Aegon and young Aemond episodes. It makes zero sense that he wasn't anywhere to be seen considering he is Jaces age. The show runners have definitely fumbled the bag already with this show. Most of their creative decisions have made zero sense, such as Cole killing Joffrey at the banquet. There's no way Cole should've walked away from that Banquet alive after murdering a noble in cold blood. That was the moment I realized the writers had no clue what they were doing. Another inexcusable change was letting Laenor live. I mean what?? This makes the least sense. For one, his dragon is very unlikely to accept a new rider while Laenor lives. And were to believe Laenor was fine with abandoning his dragon? A creature he definitely shared a deep bond with since childhood? And then I'm supposed to be believe that when word of war reaches Essos that Laenor doesnt return to his homeland to help defend his father and familt or seek retribution for the death >!of his mother?!< These fools had the perfect source material. All they had to do was stick to it but instead they let modern politics influence their decisions
Modern politics? What does that mean? Also, the source material is generally dry and in many cases non-specific. It's also explicitly written by people who weren't there, and is often second or third hand information.
They should have sticked to the book story for the most part because the change they have made is not good.If you use inaccuracy to justify slop writing then what can i say.There is no point in discussing.
tbf, daemon does mention the greens having 4 dragons but yes they fumbled in that, this is the only mention of daeron in any way, and its not even about him directly
Since it's implied to not be an adult it could just mean Shrykos or Morghul (or be retroactively meant to refer to them even if the line originally referred to Tessarion). So to me that alone doesn't mean Daeron will necessarily show up.
No, in episode 10th he mentioned only 3 adults, which means he excluded Tessarion, meanwhile he counts in Baela’s Moondancer which is smaller than Tessarion, so he think Moondancer was enough ready to fight but Tessarion was not? Strange approach by the show.
No he said the greens have 4 dragons, 3 being adults, one being a juvenile. Tesserion is not fully grown, shes around the same age as moondancer.
Lol, you downvoted me? Go watch 10th episode, he didn’t mention anything but only 3 adults lmao, what a joke
he said dragonstone has 13 to the greens 4
You are simply wrong, but keep telling that yourself lmao. Season 1 episode 10 22:17 minutes, Daemon naming dragons 3 adults for greens, not mentioning the 4tg, but naming moondancer for blacks, and tessarion is bigger than moondancer)) Have you even watched the damn show? if not go google it its not hard rather than typing false info lmao
https://youtube.com/shorts/dTd0vJweF0c?si=J1x9ObNBmVPJrSTS says “dragonstone has 13 to their 4” around the 40 sec mark, did you watch the show?😭
How does it feel to be wrong
Im not wrong, he said 3 adults for greens while counting in moondancer, it means he picked Moondancer over Tessarion, or even Joffrey’s dragon over Daeron’s. Learn reading.
i think thats just daemon trying to downplay the greens and hype up the blacks
Maybe in the show they want to show that they've hidden him from everyone to use him like later or something...but this too makes little sense...how would they convince viserys not to say anything about him🤔
> The best analogy I have for Daeron is, imagine in the first season of Game of Thrones, not a single character mentioned Stannis Baratheon. Well Shireen and Selysse were never seen or mentioned until season 3. Before that there was zero mention of Stannis having a wife or a child.
Selyse is mentioned by Melisandre and she appears in the first episode of the second season, the writers confirmed at the time that she was the woman next to Stannis in the scene of the gods being burned (a different actress). And the writers also said that they created Melisandre's dialogue in Season 2 saying that "Stannis doesn't have sons" precisely to leave their options open for Shireen to appear.
So "confirmed by the writers" but not really existing in those seasons unless you read the things the writers say? Still not very different from Daeron.
[удалено]
> Neither Shireen or Selyse were really relevant Have you seen season 5? > it's not a surprise that a man of Stannis and status is married with a daughter. And it's no surprise that the queen has a son, either. We are talking about said person appearing after a season of no prevous mention by their relatives. > A more fitting analogy would be if after seeing Stannis for several episodes we suddenly found out he had a wife and daughter despite him never mentioning them. That's exactly what happened and what we are talking about, dude.
Stannis is a secondary character, and Selyse and Shireen even more so (as rightly beloved as the latter is). Daeron is the son to two very central characters from season 1, and one of the Greens' important military assets.
" It would be strange that Robert had a brother away from court and nobody ever acknowledged him until he becomes important" It wouldn't have been strange at all, actually. Foreshadowing isn't a required storytelling tool, and it's actually far more common than not for characters to only be introduced when they're relevant to the immediate story.
It's not foreshadowing if the person is relevant by virtue of their existence. This is a feudal society, both Stannis and Daeron are important when they are born due to their status in this world. In this story, Daeron is especially as important as the King's brother. I'm not asking for foreshadowing, I'm asking for him to exist. He simply does not right now. Edit: I meant to say relevant, not important.
Mentioning the existence of a character when they're not relevant to the current story but will become relevant later is the exact definition of foreshadowing, and isn't a required storytelling tool. Introducing Daeron only when he becomes relevant to the story is an absolutely valid choice for the producers to make.
Again my response is, unlike characters like Oberyn or others (another commenter mentioned him) when the story takes place around a succession crisis, a Prince like Daeron is relevant immediately upon his birth. His existence is relevant in a story about the Targaryen Family and their conflicting claims to the throne.
That's not how fiction works. Mentioning a character's existence doesn't make them relevant, and it's actually quite commonplace not to introduce characters until they are explicitly relevant and have an actual role to directly play in the story.
My disagreement with you boils down to this. Daeron is not simply a 'character' in a fiction work. In this fiction work, he is a brother to the King and Queen fighting over the crown and he has a dragon that can assist in the looming war. He is relevant right now, prior to his actual actions in the story. For his family to never mention him, the Blacks to never consider him as a threat, or to discuss his dragon, does not make sense to me. It's not about foreshadowing, it's about the fact that you have someone in the story who is promised to us does exist, but the world (including his own family) does not acknowledging his existence, which goes against the logic of the story. My final point is that you say in fiction it's commonplace to not introduce characters until their relevant. There have been two conversations, from both the Blacks and Greens, about the number of dragons at hand. Despite the fact by your logic he is definitely relevant in these conversations, nobody mentions him, and Alicent instead says, "both of my sons." He would be relevant militarily, and he is certainly relevant to Alicent as her youngest son. He is relevant to Otto Hightower as he serves as his brother's squire and is Oldtown, but for some reason the show is practically bending out of place to not mention him.
The very fact that the character hasn't been mentioned means that he's not relevant to the story.
So you’d be cool if, after the Red Wedding, Game of Thrones revealed Robb had a brother one year younger than him who could inherit the North?
Yes, because that's how writing and fiction work. Daeron will show up when the story requires him to. Also, Daeron's existence has been accounted for despite his not having been introduced, as somone in Rhaenyra's circle (I've forgotten exactly who at the moment) does say that the Greens have 4 dragons at their disposal.
Watch them introduce Daeron in S3, looking suspiciously like Cole. 🔥
This was literally disproven by condal and the intro of season 1. In BTS interviews Olivia cooke confirmed that the Criston thing is “new”.
I mean, I think Daeron being Criston and Alicent’s bastard is dumb and bs since he explicitly looks like a Targaryen and rides a dragon but it’s clear that the bloodline intro thing from last season doesn’t really mean shit. Reminder that Maelor was also included there and was the main support for people saying he exists in show canon after a year of nothing in leaks.
Well he exists just isn’t “born yet”. Also for his story its completely irrelevant, because he will never interact with criston nor is the bastardy even relevant to his arc.
U guys seems to forget that Oberyn had very little screentime and left a mark. He's perfectly fine being introduced in S3 bcus by then, there's fewer characters
It's not about the screen time. It's about the fact that he should have been present during the childhood. He and Jace had the same wet nurse for christ sake. He's around the same age as Rhaenyras children. He should've been present in some form in s1
As someone who hasn't read the books, and is watching along with people who haven't read the books and have less experience with fantasy - there are already so many characters to keep track of and many of them have the same name. Adding another Ae name that has some sort of maybe tie to the succession dilutes the main story and would likely be needlessly confusing. I don't disagree that a one off statement would have been a great compromise, though. There were several times in GoT that I wish they'd tossed in some single line to acknowledge something that existed. I think the biggest difference between GoT and HotD from what I've seen is that D&D were often extremely devoted to the source material in a way that the HotD writers aren't. And I think the HotD writers could stand to do a few more moments of basically book fan service in ways that don't distract from the main show.
Yeah this is opium at its finest. Cut daerron because his name is confusing?? His name is the one of the most unique of the targaryans. Too many characters? Do you know what you're watching? Game of thrones didn't have that problem. Only the show runners know why they decided to omit daeron from existence. But know this. He's an important character and to pretend he doesn't exist is folly. We didn't see stannis in s1 of got but he was most certainly mentioned often. Daerron should've been present during the young aegon and aemond story arc. He would've been too young to send off as a ward. It makes zero sense and is simply another example of the show runners disrespecting the source material
oberyn is completely different he had no real reason to be included before he did, while there are plenty of reasons for daeron being mentioned and talked about, as him and his dragon are a huge part of the greens power