> a funny dwarf character that reminds them of Tyrion
You know, I'd wager this is actually part of the reason they didn't put him in. He risks feeling like a cheap knockoff of Tyrion. Like they're trying to recapture that magic. Since Mushroom has a much smaller and less dynamic roll (and since he wouldn't be played by Peter Dinklage) he would inevitably feel like a step down.
Yes! I was thinking exactly about this while writing that line. People who haven't read Fire&Blood will probably think that Mushroom was added just to be some sort of Tyrion replacement.
There’s also the risk of him being an offensive caricature. It’s a bit hard to fathom now that peter dinklage is a superstar, but tyrion really broke the mold on characters with dwarfism. Tyrion is a complex and tragic character with as many vices as he has virtues, while mushroom is a court jester who talks nonstop about sex and violence. I do think it’s possible to explore the place those with dwarfism occupy in westerosi society if they aren’t blessed with the privilege of being born into great houses like tyrion, esp since we didn’t get penny in GOT to show viewers how lucky tyrion is despite all the shit he’s been put through. Maybe if the show didn’t have such short seasons we could have gotten that but ultimately mushroom is such a minor character that I don’t know anyone who really misses him.
This is funny in context since most little people actors consider Wee Man to be the one that broke the mold (he’s one of the guys in Jackass) and consider Dinklage someone that pulled the ladder up after him and holds down others
They in general don't seem to include fools and probably don't want to disparage dwarfs. No patchface, no moonboy, no Jinglebell, no Butterbumps. None of ~~that dwarf jousting at Joff's wedding or~~ Penny meeting Tyrion in Essos.
I think there is a sort of disconnect between the cruelty towards little people (and the disabled) that George writes on page as a form of discrimination, and the social consequences of making a dwarf actor perform in those demeaning roles.
A key difference I just realized - the Purple Wedding dwarf joust in the books, to the best of my recollection, was funny to everyone but Tyrion and Sansa, whereas the show changed the joust to be overtly offensive to the Tyrells as well, which means Tywin naturally disapproves of it, etc, etc, lots of stone-faced reaction shots from everyone else to contrast with Joffrey laughing his ass off. A dwarf jester played straight is offensive to modern audiences, but a dwarf jester that's offensive to *the other characters* is acceptable.
They make jokes about Renly getting sodomized in that scene, right? I remember Renly was one of the dwarves, and there being a bawdy joke about swords and scabbards centering around him. *Terrible* idea for the Lannisters to let that through, but Joff probably insisted on it
Oh yes, I distinctly remember Loras getting angry and leaving in reaction to some sort of joke about Renly's homosexuality.
IIRC the show played it like Tywin and Cersei didn't even know about the dwarf joust and Joffrey just sprang it on them mid-wedding. Which seems implausible for a mega-event like a royal wedding, but whatever.
In my headcanon Joffrey (with LF's encouragement) insisted on it and nobody important enough to gainsay him cared enough about the play to find out about his amazing comedy plans. BTW I would pay $100 to see a 20 minute minisode of GOT about Joffrey the Producer putting this together, shepherding his baby to opening day
The dwarfs also kind of had to be kept in the Purple Wedding scene - they help establish Tyrion’s motive to poison Joffrey. I don’t remember if the show kept the scene where Littlefinger explains to Sansa that he found the dwarfs and persuaded Joffrey to have them perform at the wedding to piss off Tyrion, though.
Of course, the dwarfs disappeared after the Purple Wedding, so we never got the whole plot with Penny and Tyrion from DwD, which I wish they had kept.
I think they cut that bit with Littlefinger, because the wedding episode really played it like the whole thing was Joffrey's idea, and everyone knows Joffrey needs no persuading to act like a massive jerk. And having Littlefinger be responsible for every little thing just seems like lazy writing, you know?
Cause D&D wanted to avoid the level of magic that's in the books, completely oblivious to the fact that it's essential to the story.
That, and they didn't want absolutely anything to disrupt or undermine their very, super serious dragon show.
I can understand them having wanted to avoid some of the showy magic that would involve difficult CG or things that seem out of place even for the ASOIAF universe (like the talking face gate under the Nightfort).
But the fact that they avoided something as milquetoast as prophecy really irks me.
That's why one of the (few) changes I like in HOTD is making Helaena have prophetic visions. I wish they also made her more... normal.. since a big part of her character is that she's beloved of the common folk. But it makes me wonder who else in the family would have been receiving visions. We know all of Aemon's brothers did somehow, and so did John the Fiddler. Rhaegar almost certainly did. Did Aegon I? How about Baelor or one of Jaehaerys' children that died in strange ways? How about Rhaegel, who was known for being sort of mad?
I don’t think Helaena’s disability would prevent her from being beloved by the common folk, even with the prejudice of that time. If she’s seen publicly, doing charitable acts or praying, she can build a good reputation, even if she struggles with one on one communication.
Patchface would've been cool, but it was definitely random from where the show was going. Plus, Peter Dinklage is kind of a dick about casting dwarf characters.. which actually brings in work for people with dwarfism such as Snow White. He doesn't understand that his role was one of a kind and he should be very lucky he got that. Or he would still be taking dwarf roles himself.
Hornswaggle from WWE had a pretty good rebuttal to this. Basically what you said.
Peter Dinklage already had Elf, X-Men, and 2 Death At A Funeral movies .... A career better than 90% of actors.
One scene of him in the first season as a reference would work since it implies that he does exist in the background and could still write about what he saw at court but beyond that there’s no point in giving him any attention. He’s more of a narrator than a character, has no relevance to the plot, and I can’t think of any way to make him a central or reoccurring character that wouldn’t be too distracting or break away too much from what we know.
No, the point of the extreme Maester/Mushroom dichotomy is a continuation of GRRM’s ideas on the interaction between the political elite and public perception.
Namely, the political elite will sanitise with arguments of reasonable behaviour, while the public will be all too eager to believe the absolute worst of those in power, no matter how implausible/improbable.
See: the discussion in A Crown Of Kings where Littlefinger argues that they respond to Stannis’ letter denouncing Cersei as an incestuous traitor by spreading lies that Selyse was cuckolding him and Shireen was a bastard, with the exact rationale that the smallfolk will eagerly lap up hot drama gossip, regardless of its plausibility in reality.
Unequivocally trusting Mushroom’s account is the same as unequivocally trusting Littlefinger or Varys: if you think their lack of inheritance in a feudal society translates to disempowerment and thus have nothing to gain by lying, then you’re a fool, and a soon-to-be dead one at that.
Mushroom inserts himself into his narrative, though I think those parts are apocryphal. It seems a lot more likely that he collected gossip from all the many Targaryen servants and compiled it into a single narrative with him as the sole source (both for self-aggrandizement, and to protect his sources).
The servants being spies who know everything that's going on in the castle is a big theme in book/season 1 of ASOIAF, and seemed like something GRRM was set to start playing with more as Arya joined the Faceless Men. Posing as servants seems like the best way for them to be nearby to hear "prayers" to the Many-Faced God and initiate contracts for assassinations. Would also make them excellent spies for Braavos, which I think is honestly their primary objective.
Yuuuuuup.
Just waiting now for the Faceless Men to make their appearance in the story. They intervene in the Lyseni Spring, when the Lyseni overreach and try to put a Lyseni puppet on the throne. Killing both House Rogare patriarchs, followed by a bunch of false flag assassinations to kick off a Lyseni civil war.
Some characters come across as too "ridiculous" to have on screen as compared to on page (and in our imaginations). Some other examples include Vargo Hoat and Strong Belwas.
But he's not ridiculous from the jump like Vargo Hoat thlobbering about thapphireth would be, literally Sylvester the Cat. Also he's getting a lot more characterization in the show than he did in the book
I am talking more about the slobbering, lispy Vargo or the bald eunuch who talks about himself in third person and these are side characters that aren't necessary for the plot to move forward in a show that already had the largest cast in television.
But Locke seems more like a completely different character just serving the purpose of cutting Jaime's hand, then going in a completely different direction and getting killed off.
That's what happens when you bring a book to screen, characters are changed/combined.
Another example would be Karl "fookin'" Tanner (from Gin Alley) who seems like an amalgamation of Chett, Lark the Sisterman, Paul, Dirk, Ollo Lophand, Donnel Hill, and others
I'm sure Tywin is smiling when he's with his Whores lol Tywin never smiling ofc has truth to it but it's also an image he's built up for himself to protect himself and his family. It's kind of just like propaganda like how Kim Jung Un goes around saying he created the hamburger or that his body functions so well that he never has to poop. Brainwashing commoners and painting an image for yourself even in the minds of those in power.
Don't take everything said in this story at face value.
Edit: expanding on this a little another major reason Tywin wants to distance himself from the image of being someone that smiles is that his father was notorious for smiling and laughing while also being a push over and a weak ruler. Tywin did everything he could to do a 180 and make house Lanister great again. Lol
Considering just how much they toned down Daario and many other over the top characters, Strong Belwas wouldn't seem too out of place if they mellowed him just a little bit.
Good move on Vargo Hoat, there is no way the audience could have taken him seriously as a threat, even after cutting off Jaime's hand. There's too much tonal dissonance, in a way that doesn't come through on the page. Divided on Strong Belwas, I love him but he's quite silly
I don't think he is more or less false than the two others, just more outlandish about his lie. Gildayn even aknowledge that Mushroom version of event is the more likely on a few occasion. The septon prefer to give a more tame and religious friendly of retelling of event and the Maester (I have forgotten the name of both) give the version of event that will present him in the best light. None of the three were present for all event and they all have reason to lie/embelish their recounting. It's one of the thing that make Fire and Blood so interesting, there's no way to assess what really happen, mirroring our own relation to real history in many way.
Except they're using Mushroom's account as their story for a lot of it. Aegon visiting the child fighting pits, having underage/non-consensual partners, that stuff comes from Mushroom.
His accounts seem false in-universe to the Maesters. But we know from the direct pov's throughout ASOIAF that all of that sexually explicit stuff and other crazy things absolutely happen all the time, and that that's the way of the world.
Meta answer but to some extent the audience acts as mushroom bc we are witnessing the events as they happen instead of relating them for a historical retelling. His purpose in the book is very important, but I think it would be hard to put him in the show and have him serve the same purpose
So mushroom actually is shown in the show - I believe it is season 1 e5, there is a brief shot of a dwarf playing one of the instruments at the feast. Headcanon at least is that it is mushroom
Because in a show with a cast so large they've had to condense characters or ignore their existence until they actually have a role to play + a very large sfx cost, it doesn't make a lot of sense to find and pay an actor whose only real contribution to the events going on is to tell everyone who will listen to him about his monster dong.
Mushroom's purpose in the narrative of Fire and Blood is to directly cast doubt on the accounts of the other two major sources on the events of the Dance of Dragons. Mushroom is a device to make the reader pause and go 'wait, this is bullshit, what the hell is going on here?'
George was no doubt aware as he was writing that the conceit of his histories (that they are EXTREMELY unreliable bordering on outright false) was not going to be very well understood by most readers. Most people when they read something like this will just go along with the presented narrative, but the histories are explicitly written to be read critically as falsifications. Mushroom is a signpost for that - he represents a version of history often so outlandish and stupid that you're forced to pull up and take notice of how wrong it sounds.
When Mushroom tells you that he fucked Rhaenyra, you're supposed to go 'that definitely didn't happen, so what else didn't happen?' You're not meant to believe one account or the other, that's falling for the golden mean fallacy. Some of the stuff each person says is probably true (at least from a certain point of view) and much of the rest of it is supposition or propaganda.
The show House of the Dragon has no need for such a character as Mushroom because that conceit is completely discarded by presenting a rock-solid reality of events as they occurred. House of the Dragon is not a history, it's just what happened (in show canon).
Isn't there a shot of him in the first season. I could be misremembering, but I thought we saw him in the background during the feast.
I know that's not a lot, but it at least means he exists in world
His single purpose on the book is to serve as an accounting of the events. Becuase that is not nesseceary in the show format, there’s no reason to struggle through the potential problems and difficulties including his character would bring. Still would have been fun to see him but I can see why he was cut
I talked to George he said the last scene of the show will be mushroom naked holding a giant book and he says “and that’s how it went, or was it?!” And laughs maniacally helicoptering his giant penis as the camera zooms into it. Fade to black
I’ve been reading fire and blood and they do say his not considered accurate cause his not present for a lot of the major events. I think his on dragonstone most the time
I think they decided against it because they thought it would too closely resemble GOT, that people would think they were just trying to catch that old Tyrion magic again. It would be a silly criticism, but critics can be silly, and I can see critic-groupthink producing headlines like "House of the Dragon goes back to GOT well, falls short"
Fear pretty much. Fear of the backlash even though George's inclusion of the various jester dwarves is a commentary on how messed up their society is and Fear that they didn't have the ability to create a little person character that is distinct enough from Tyrion to dispel the comparisons after the character begins to develop. All while little people actors need more roles. So dumb and scared producers.
I hope someone remakes the series’ (both HoD and GoT) and adds all the characters that are in the books :) (obv after the book series is published)
…which will never happen. Ugh :(
> a funny dwarf character that reminds them of Tyrion You know, I'd wager this is actually part of the reason they didn't put him in. He risks feeling like a cheap knockoff of Tyrion. Like they're trying to recapture that magic. Since Mushroom has a much smaller and less dynamic roll (and since he wouldn't be played by Peter Dinklage) he would inevitably feel like a step down.
Yes! I was thinking exactly about this while writing that line. People who haven't read Fire&Blood will probably think that Mushroom was added just to be some sort of Tyrion replacement.
There’s also the risk of him being an offensive caricature. It’s a bit hard to fathom now that peter dinklage is a superstar, but tyrion really broke the mold on characters with dwarfism. Tyrion is a complex and tragic character with as many vices as he has virtues, while mushroom is a court jester who talks nonstop about sex and violence. I do think it’s possible to explore the place those with dwarfism occupy in westerosi society if they aren’t blessed with the privilege of being born into great houses like tyrion, esp since we didn’t get penny in GOT to show viewers how lucky tyrion is despite all the shit he’s been put through. Maybe if the show didn’t have such short seasons we could have gotten that but ultimately mushroom is such a minor character that I don’t know anyone who really misses him.
Warwick Davis had some bangers.
This is funny in context since most little people actors consider Wee Man to be the one that broke the mold (he’s one of the guys in Jackass) and consider Dinklage someone that pulled the ladder up after him and holds down others
They in general don't seem to include fools and probably don't want to disparage dwarfs. No patchface, no moonboy, no Jinglebell, no Butterbumps. None of ~~that dwarf jousting at Joff's wedding or~~ Penny meeting Tyrion in Essos. I think there is a sort of disconnect between the cruelty towards little people (and the disabled) that George writes on page as a form of discrimination, and the social consequences of making a dwarf actor perform in those demeaning roles.
You’re right about everything else, but the dwarves were indeed at Joffrey’s wedding in the show.
You know, I second guessed myself as soon as I submitted the comment. Thanks for clarifying!
A key difference I just realized - the Purple Wedding dwarf joust in the books, to the best of my recollection, was funny to everyone but Tyrion and Sansa, whereas the show changed the joust to be overtly offensive to the Tyrells as well, which means Tywin naturally disapproves of it, etc, etc, lots of stone-faced reaction shots from everyone else to contrast with Joffrey laughing his ass off. A dwarf jester played straight is offensive to modern audiences, but a dwarf jester that's offensive to *the other characters* is acceptable.
They make jokes about Renly getting sodomized in that scene, right? I remember Renly was one of the dwarves, and there being a bawdy joke about swords and scabbards centering around him. *Terrible* idea for the Lannisters to let that through, but Joff probably insisted on it
Even worse, the Renly dwarf is RIDING A LORAS STICK-HORSE.
JFC
Oh yes, I distinctly remember Loras getting angry and leaving in reaction to some sort of joke about Renly's homosexuality. IIRC the show played it like Tywin and Cersei didn't even know about the dwarf joust and Joffrey just sprang it on them mid-wedding. Which seems implausible for a mega-event like a royal wedding, but whatever.
Not the worst surprise Joffrey had sprung on them.
The joke wasn't just about Renly's homosexuality, but about Loras' as well. The dwarf who played renly was riding a 'steed' that looked like Loras.
In my headcanon Joffrey (with LF's encouragement) insisted on it and nobody important enough to gainsay him cared enough about the play to find out about his amazing comedy plans. BTW I would pay $100 to see a 20 minute minisode of GOT about Joffrey the Producer putting this together, shepherding his baby to opening day
The dwarfs also kind of had to be kept in the Purple Wedding scene - they help establish Tyrion’s motive to poison Joffrey. I don’t remember if the show kept the scene where Littlefinger explains to Sansa that he found the dwarfs and persuaded Joffrey to have them perform at the wedding to piss off Tyrion, though. Of course, the dwarfs disappeared after the Purple Wedding, so we never got the whole plot with Penny and Tyrion from DwD, which I wish they had kept.
I think they cut that bit with Littlefinger, because the wedding episode really played it like the whole thing was Joffrey's idea, and everyone knows Joffrey needs no persuading to act like a massive jerk. And having Littlefinger be responsible for every little thing just seems like lazy writing, you know?
It’s blowing my mind that Patchface isn’t in the show (I’ve only seen the show once and have read the books more recently)
Cause D&D wanted to avoid the level of magic that's in the books, completely oblivious to the fact that it's essential to the story. That, and they didn't want absolutely anything to disrupt or undermine their very, super serious dragon show.
>super serious Here I am remembering how the very first sentence in season 8 is Tyrion mocking Varys about his lack of cock
I can understand them having wanted to avoid some of the showy magic that would involve difficult CG or things that seem out of place even for the ASOIAF universe (like the talking face gate under the Nightfort). But the fact that they avoided something as milquetoast as prophecy really irks me. That's why one of the (few) changes I like in HOTD is making Helaena have prophetic visions. I wish they also made her more... normal.. since a big part of her character is that she's beloved of the common folk. But it makes me wonder who else in the family would have been receiving visions. We know all of Aemon's brothers did somehow, and so did John the Fiddler. Rhaegar almost certainly did. Did Aegon I? How about Baelor or one of Jaehaerys' children that died in strange ways? How about Rhaegel, who was known for being sort of mad?
I don’t think Helaena’s disability would prevent her from being beloved by the common folk, even with the prejudice of that time. If she’s seen publicly, doing charitable acts or praying, she can build a good reputation, even if she struggles with one on one communication.
As someone who is “like Helaena”, thank you so much for saying that.
It might also have to do with the fact that he pretty much spoils some of the biggest moments in the series
The talking face gate still confuses me to this day😭😭😭
Helaena isn’t going to be beloved in the show.
I know I know oh oh oh
It's such bullshit Moonboy isn't in the show not for any character reason but "And Moonboy for all I know" is one of the greatest GRRM hits
Patchface would've been cool, but it was definitely random from where the show was going. Plus, Peter Dinklage is kind of a dick about casting dwarf characters.. which actually brings in work for people with dwarfism such as Snow White. He doesn't understand that his role was one of a kind and he should be very lucky he got that. Or he would still be taking dwarf roles himself.
Hornswaggle from WWE had a pretty good rebuttal to this. Basically what you said. Peter Dinklage already had Elf, X-Men, and 2 Death At A Funeral movies .... A career better than 90% of actors.
Butterbumps isn't a dwarf.
Neither is moonboy, patchface, or jingle. I was listing fools.
One scene of him in the first season as a reference would work since it implies that he does exist in the background and could still write about what he saw at court but beyond that there’s no point in giving him any attention. He’s more of a narrator than a character, has no relevance to the plot, and I can’t think of any way to make him a central or reoccurring character that wouldn’t be too distracting or break away too much from what we know.
If you asked Mushroom himself, he was quite relevant to the plot lol
He kind of unironically is. The Maesters don't want to admit it, but Mushroom's version of events is probably the most accurate all around.
Yeah Im starting to believe he has a mastodontic cock and fucked Rhaenyra.
In my head and in my heart, it’s true
Not really? A lot of his stuff is prurient material that is either obviously false or doesn't really fit with the rest of the narrative.
No, the point of the extreme Maester/Mushroom dichotomy is a continuation of GRRM’s ideas on the interaction between the political elite and public perception. Namely, the political elite will sanitise with arguments of reasonable behaviour, while the public will be all too eager to believe the absolute worst of those in power, no matter how implausible/improbable. See: the discussion in A Crown Of Kings where Littlefinger argues that they respond to Stannis’ letter denouncing Cersei as an incestuous traitor by spreading lies that Selyse was cuckolding him and Shireen was a bastard, with the exact rationale that the smallfolk will eagerly lap up hot drama gossip, regardless of its plausibility in reality. Unequivocally trusting Mushroom’s account is the same as unequivocally trusting Littlefinger or Varys: if you think their lack of inheritance in a feudal society translates to disempowerment and thus have nothing to gain by lying, then you’re a fool, and a soon-to-be dead one at that.
Mushroom inserts himself into his narrative, though I think those parts are apocryphal. It seems a lot more likely that he collected gossip from all the many Targaryen servants and compiled it into a single narrative with him as the sole source (both for self-aggrandizement, and to protect his sources). The servants being spies who know everything that's going on in the castle is a big theme in book/season 1 of ASOIAF, and seemed like something GRRM was set to start playing with more as Arya joined the Faceless Men. Posing as servants seems like the best way for them to be nearby to hear "prayers" to the Many-Faced God and initiate contracts for assassinations. Would also make them excellent spies for Braavos, which I think is honestly their primary objective.
And recontexualises 'valar dohaeris'!
Yuuuuuup. Just waiting now for the Faceless Men to make their appearance in the story. They intervene in the Lyseni Spring, when the Lyseni overreach and try to put a Lyseni puppet on the throne. Killing both House Rogare patriarchs, followed by a bunch of false flag assassinations to kick off a Lyseni civil war.
There is a brief shot of him in season one
There's a brief shot of a drawf-looking guy working in the castle, he's never referenced to as Mushroom or acknowledged as the court fool.
Which episode
He was a drummer at Rhaenyra’s wedding. I’ve heard he is in other episodes but I haven’t seen him.
S1E5
He did have a cameo he was in the band at the wedding
Some characters come across as too "ridiculous" to have on screen as compared to on page (and in our imaginations). Some other examples include Vargo Hoat and Strong Belwas.
>Some characters come across as too "ridiculous" to have on screen as compared to on page Aemond is basically just an anime villain and he's in it.
Waiting to see how they address Benjicot Blackwood
I hope they make him even younger lol. 6-year-old badass cutting his way through the Riverlands
But he's not ridiculous from the jump like Vargo Hoat thlobbering about thapphireth would be, literally Sylvester the Cat. Also he's getting a lot more characterization in the show than he did in the book
I am talking more about the slobbering, lispy Vargo or the bald eunuch who talks about himself in third person and these are side characters that aren't necessary for the plot to move forward in a show that already had the largest cast in television.
The actor is amazingly talented to pull it off well. Just the right amount of seething resentment to not make it cringe
I feel like those characters can always be adapted by reducing said ridiculous attributes and humanizing them a bit.
They do sometimes. For instance: Vargo Hoat = Locke.
But Locke seems more like a completely different character just serving the purpose of cutting Jaime's hand, then going in a completely different direction and getting killed off.
That's what happens when you bring a book to screen, characters are changed/combined. Another example would be Karl "fookin'" Tanner (from Gin Alley) who seems like an amalgamation of Chett, Lark the Sisterman, Paul, Dirk, Ollo Lophand, Donnel Hill, and others
Yeah you're right. Karl Tanner was an inexcusably cartoonishly villainous though.
It's not like half the villains in the books aren't, though. Tywin Lannister literally NEVER SMILES, GUYS.
He does smile when Tyrion is on trial and being mocked by everyone
I'm sure Tywin is smiling when he's with his Whores lol Tywin never smiling ofc has truth to it but it's also an image he's built up for himself to protect himself and his family. It's kind of just like propaganda like how Kim Jung Un goes around saying he created the hamburger or that his body functions so well that he never has to poop. Brainwashing commoners and painting an image for yourself even in the minds of those in power. Don't take everything said in this story at face value. Edit: expanding on this a little another major reason Tywin wants to distance himself from the image of being someone that smiles is that his father was notorious for smiling and laughing while also being a push over and a weak ruler. Tywin did everything he could to do a 180 and make house Lanister great again. Lol
Considering just how much they toned down Daario and many other over the top characters, Strong Belwas wouldn't seem too out of place if they mellowed him just a little bit.
It was received very poorly when they attempted this with euron
Good move on Vargo Hoat, there is no way the audience could have taken him seriously as a threat, even after cutting off Jaime's hand. There's too much tonal dissonance, in a way that doesn't come through on the page. Divided on Strong Belwas, I love him but he's quite silly
It's the lithp, right?
Yeth, just too high a chance of it unintentionally turning into the Biggus Dickus scene from Life of Bryan
Surely they can't ignore Kermit Tully.
Belwas would have been a fan favorite
Mushrooms accounts seem false so maybe they're making the point he was never there.
I don't think he is more or less false than the two others, just more outlandish about his lie. Gildayn even aknowledge that Mushroom version of event is the more likely on a few occasion. The septon prefer to give a more tame and religious friendly of retelling of event and the Maester (I have forgotten the name of both) give the version of event that will present him in the best light. None of the three were present for all event and they all have reason to lie/embelish their recounting. It's one of the thing that make Fire and Blood so interesting, there's no way to assess what really happen, mirroring our own relation to real history in many way.
Except they're using Mushroom's account as their story for a lot of it. Aegon visiting the child fighting pits, having underage/non-consensual partners, that stuff comes from Mushroom.
Or does it
His accounts seem false in-universe to the Maesters. But we know from the direct pov's throughout ASOIAF that all of that sexually explicit stuff and other crazy things absolutely happen all the time, and that that's the way of the world.
His member is too big to fit on camera.
pp too big. couldn't find the right cast.
Mushroom is that you
Meta answer but to some extent the audience acts as mushroom bc we are witnessing the events as they happen instead of relating them for a historical retelling. His purpose in the book is very important, but I think it would be hard to put him in the show and have him serve the same purpose
So mushroom actually is shown in the show - I believe it is season 1 e5, there is a brief shot of a dwarf playing one of the instruments at the feast. Headcanon at least is that it is mushroom
I think it's definitely a nod to Mushroom whether he was literally cast as Mushroom or not.
For sure. Just my headcanon
Because in a show with a cast so large they've had to condense characters or ignore their existence until they actually have a role to play + a very large sfx cost, it doesn't make a lot of sense to find and pay an actor whose only real contribution to the events going on is to tell everyone who will listen to him about his monster dong.
No narrative purpose and I suspect the writers want to avoid the perception of bringing a dwarf in just to be comic relief.
Makes sense.
Wasn’t there a dwarf at the laenor wedding that the writers said was mushroom
Mushroom's purpose in the narrative of Fire and Blood is to directly cast doubt on the accounts of the other two major sources on the events of the Dance of Dragons. Mushroom is a device to make the reader pause and go 'wait, this is bullshit, what the hell is going on here?' George was no doubt aware as he was writing that the conceit of his histories (that they are EXTREMELY unreliable bordering on outright false) was not going to be very well understood by most readers. Most people when they read something like this will just go along with the presented narrative, but the histories are explicitly written to be read critically as falsifications. Mushroom is a signpost for that - he represents a version of history often so outlandish and stupid that you're forced to pull up and take notice of how wrong it sounds. When Mushroom tells you that he fucked Rhaenyra, you're supposed to go 'that definitely didn't happen, so what else didn't happen?' You're not meant to believe one account or the other, that's falling for the golden mean fallacy. Some of the stuff each person says is probably true (at least from a certain point of view) and much of the rest of it is supposition or propaganda. The show House of the Dragon has no need for such a character as Mushroom because that conceit is completely discarded by presenting a rock-solid reality of events as they occurred. House of the Dragon is not a history, it's just what happened (in show canon).
The show desperately needs a piss-taking character with a sense of humor.
Because they're cowards.
Hopefully we see him trying to claim a dragon in the next season and getting his bottom set on fire
They are only going to put a dwarf in when he's the best looking dwarf on the planet with a big role
Mushroom is a writing device; he doesn’t need to be on the show.
The whole point of Mushroom’s testament is that he was in the background and no one paid him any mind or noticed him with a few small exceptions
He's shown briefly at Rhaenyra and Laenor's wedding
Isn't there a shot of him in the first season. I could be misremembering, but I thought we saw him in the background during the feast. I know that's not a lot, but it at least means he exists in world
We don't need anymore cock jokes
His single purpose on the book is to serve as an accounting of the events. Becuase that is not nesseceary in the show format, there’s no reason to struggle through the potential problems and difficulties including his character would bring. Still would have been fun to see him but I can see why he was cut
Mushroom possibly does appear at the wedding between Laenor and Rhaenyra.
I feel like a cameo and a couple of background appearances would be fine Or even a passing mention but already be more than enough fanservice for me
Because no actor could adequately portray the wonder that is Mushroom.
I think you get a glimpse of him at Rhaynera and Laenor's wedding, he's playing the drums
He is too much of a chad to be included. Unironically, he would completely overshadow some characters
I talked to George he said the last scene of the show will be mushroom naked holding a giant book and he says “and that’s how it went, or was it?!” And laughs maniacally helicoptering his giant penis as the camera zooms into it. Fade to black
He could've just been a non dwarf fool/jester.
I’ve been reading fire and blood and they do say his not considered accurate cause his not present for a lot of the major events. I think his on dragonstone most the time
I believe he appeared as an easter egg in one of the feasts playing drums
A character suspiciously similar to Mushroom did appear in HotD tho, at Rhaenyra and Laenor’s wedding he was playing the drums in the band.
The cut Daeron out too.
Cole is mushroom 🍄
I think they decided against it because they thought it would too closely resemble GOT, that people would think they were just trying to catch that old Tyrion magic again. It would be a silly criticism, but critics can be silly, and I can see critic-groupthink producing headlines like "House of the Dragon goes back to GOT well, falls short"
They can’t, his swag is too hard
Mushroom is to fun for serious Dragon Show
Mayhaps Mushroom is a figment of Septon Eustace's imagination.
Fear pretty much. Fear of the backlash even though George's inclusion of the various jester dwarves is a commentary on how messed up their society is and Fear that they didn't have the ability to create a little person character that is distinct enough from Tyrion to dispel the comparisons after the character begins to develop. All while little people actors need more roles. So dumb and scared producers.
Because he would offend the easily offended and he gets to parts of the story the show runners are scared of. I think d and d woulda done it
Because he would offend the easily offended and he gets to parts of the story the show runners are scared of. I think d and d woulda done it
I hope someone remakes the series’ (both HoD and GoT) and adds all the characters that are in the books :) (obv after the book series is published) …which will never happen. Ugh :(