Toss a coin to your witcher!

[Thomas Cardew]

O’ Valley of Plenty
O’ Valley of Plenty
O’

Toss a coin to your Witcher
And friend of humanity

Netflix's Witcher adaptation is out! While I'm definitely enjoying binging it while traveling for the holidays, I'll need to do a rewatch at some point. There's a few pacing issues, some of the scenes seem to drag or could use a few seconds tighter editing. The timeline is bit too subtle IMO. I've only played the Witcher 2 and 3 (couldn't get into 1 after playing 2 the graphics and fighting were too different), I haven't read any of the books, and while I could figure out the general order of events. I couldn't tell you timing between them. I can see how it would confuse some people with no exposure to the material at all. However, I'm completely sold on Caville as Geralt, 10/10 performance. Jaskier (Dandelion), Ynyvere, and Ciri were great as well. Triss and Foltest fell a little flat for me but I have only the games to compare it too.

I will say it made me want to reinstall Witcher 3 and finally play through the DLC I picked up on sale but never played.

What are other people's thoughts? Did the show fall short of your expectations or was your mind blown away? Is it a fitting introduction to the world or a confusing mess you wish you had never bothered with?

I've avoided major spoilers as best I can in the title post but reader beware further in!

[Saintheart]

I will say it made me want to reinstall Witcher 3 and finally play through the DLC I picked up on sale but never played.

Oh, please tell me it's Blood and Wine you picked up but never played. If so you are in for an absolutely gorgeous treat when you play it, you will not regret it. Can't wait for someone to make a Henry Cavill mod!



What are other people's thoughts? Did the show fall short of your expectations or was your mind blown away?

I'll admit that I've only seen the bits and pieces of fight scenes and one or two other parts that have made it onto Youtube, but I'm impressed by what I've seen. Cavill is clearly having an absolute blast playing Geralt, and that's a vote in favour all on its own. In terms of a Witcher 3-accurate Geralt, he comes damn close, he's worked pretty hard on replicating Doug Cockle's low growl.

Although they seem to be substituting Witcher 3 Geralt's "Fine" catchphrase for another four-letter word starting with 'F', at least on what I've seen.

[Thomas Cardew]

Oh, please tell me it's Blood and Wine you picked up but never played. If so you are in for an absolutely gorgeous treat when you play it, you will not regret it. Can't wait for someone to make a Henry Cavill mod!

It is indeed. I'm looking forward to it, I just hope I don't get too distracted by the base game. I don't have my old saves (new computer) and I expect I need to be fairly high level for it.



I'll admit that I've only seen the bits and pieces of fight scenes and one or two other parts that have made it onto Youtube, but I'm impressed by what I've seen. Cavill is clearly having an absolute blast playing Geralt, and that's a vote in favour all on its own. In terms of a Witcher 3-accurate Geralt, he comes damn close, he's worked pretty hard on replicating Doug Cockle's low growl.

Although they seem to be substituting Witcher 3 Geralt's "Fine" catchphrase for another four-letter word starting with 'F', at least on what I've seen.

Most of the fights are great! The first one gets is definitely getting lots of love online and feels perfectly reminiscent of carving through a bandit camp. Admittedly, it is very much a 'line up and charge him one at a time' fight at first but the ending duel with the leader is fantastic. Cavill absolutely has a blast and it shows! There is definitely a lot of language, although some of it is perfectly timed. For example, Geralt's response to off-offhandedly invoking the law of surprise and gaining Ciri is superb.

[Rodin]

I'll admit that I've only seen the bits and pieces of fight scenes and one or two other parts that have made it onto Youtube, but I'm impressed by what I've seen. Cavill is clearly having an absolute blast playing Geralt, and that's a vote in favour all on its own. In terms of a Witcher 3-accurate Geralt, he comes damn close, he's worked pretty hard on replicating Doug Cockle's low growl.

Although they seem to be substituting Witcher 3 Geralt's "Fine" catchphrase for another four-letter word starting with 'F', at least on what I've seen.

I've just binge-watched it, and Henry Cavill is Geralt. Whoever cast him as Superman was a moron, he pulls off the broody loner with aplomb. The substitution of the catchphrase works great as well, and they don't overuse it.

As to the timeline, once I caught on it was pretty easy to follow. Each viewpoint character's timeline is in chronological order, and once two viewpoint characters meet anything beyond that point is after their meeting.

I wonder if this counts as a video game adaptation? Sure, the original story is from a Polish book series, but the popularity outside Poland only took off after the video games were released and most people still only know it from the games. If we can count it, I'd say it's the best adaptation ever.

That said, I don't know how accurate it is in terms of lore. I've only played a bit of the games, so I don't know the overall plot. What they created stands on its own as a really great show.

[Yora]

It is very clearly adapting the story from the books. Only saw the trailer but you could very clearly see which scenes from the books they were showing.

[Eldan]

Yeah, they are adapting the first few short stories. They didn't even get to the actual books yet.

[Yora]

The second volume is already very much plot relevant, even with the different format. And I think A Question of Price and The Last Wish from the first volume are the ones set that the whole plot of the later books into motion. I would not regard them as separate from the rest of the series.

[GloatingSwine]

I wonder if this counts as a video game adaptation? Sure, the original story is from a Polish book series, but the popularity outside Poland only took off after the video games were released and most people still only know it from the games. If we can count it, I'd say it's the best adaptation ever.

That said, I don't know how accurate it is in terms of lore. I've only played a bit of the games, so I don't know the overall plot. What they created stands on its own as a really great show.

Something to consider is that the games really aren’t very faithful to the books. They didn’t even have Yennefer or Ciri in until the third one, and the Ciri is basically the co-protagonist of the novels. (She probably has more page count in books 2-4 than Geralt does).

I’ve only seen the first two episodes of the series yet, but it’s so far accurate to the backstory but it’s also super heavy on backstory that gets delivered as dreams and flashbacks in the books but is being done sort of chronologically in the series.

[PPA]

I've noticed that people who have played the games but haven't read the books have more complaints about the show, while people who never played the games but read the books are much more satisfied with what Netflix did.

I think it was pretty good. For the most part the production values are good and there's just some wonky CGI here and there, especially with the dragons, but otherwise I found the show to be solid. I'll definitely continue watching it.

Most of the cast did a solid job with their characters (Yennefer, Jaskier, Calanthe and Ciri were better than I expected), but Henry Cavill steals the show as Geralt. He not only looks the part, but manages to convincingly play the character both on his "Hmmm" and F-bomb monosyllabic brooding mode, and on the scenes where he's pushed to talk at more length and he's all sarcastic and cynical.

I read the novels many years ago before they even had an English translation and I remember liking them a lot, and there's a lot of scenes I recognized on the show, but even when things weren't as recognizable, the tone was still pretty consistent with the novels.

[Rodin]

I think it was pretty good. For the most part the production values are good and there's just some wonky CGI here and there, especially with the dragons, but otherwise I found the show to be solid. I'll definitely continue watching it.
.

I actually thought the wonky CGI on the dragons worked for the show. It made them fit much better with the sort of misshapen fantasy creatures that populate the rest of the world. Game of Thrones dragons these are not.

Glad to know that the games differ enough from the books that I won't be spoiling myself too much if i take a crack at the third one. I got turned off by the crafting last time, but I'm much more interested in the world now after watching the show.

[Thomas Cardew]

I actually thought the wonky CGI on the dragons worked for the show. It made them fit much better with the sort of misshapen fantasy creatures that populate the rest of the world. Game of Thrones dragons these are not.

Glad to know that the games differ enough from the books that I won't be spoiling myself too much if i take a crack at the third one. I got turned off by the crafting last time, but I'm much more interested in the world now after watching the show.

I have... mixed... feelings about the dragons. I thought witcher 'proper' dragons as opposed to draconids are supposed to be more GOT like while the lesser (not actual) dragons look like what we got in the show. I also have a hard time seeing the small golden dragon we saw flying two full sized women to safety.

The third game actually is the closest to the books from my understanding. It involves Ciri and Yennefer significantly more; the third game essentially revolves around an adult Ciri. So there's going to be some pretty big spoilers about her, nothing that's damaged my enjoyment of the show. In fact I think it enhanced it, but your mileage may vary.

[Rynjin]

I've only seen the first two episodes, but it's great so far.

I'm loving Henry Cavill as Geralt; his love for the material really shows in his performance. He's not EXACTLY games Geralt, but he's close without feeling like he's trying too hard to give the exact same performance.

I'm one of the people that's played the games (though one of the apparently rare people that not only played but enjoyed the first game...) but not read the books, so it's interesting seeing the origin of characters I've only seen "fully formed" before. It's kind of like watching a well crafted prequel; knowing where things end up does not at all ruin the experience.

The second episode I found especially interesting, given the first was a bit uneventful (not boring, but almost skippable I think) save for the fight at the end which was a really nice translation of the first game's "Group Style" to the screen.

But I found the second episode fascinating in that it simultaneously made me sympathize with Yennefer...while still finding her to be an insufferable bitch (in a good way, mostly). At least now I can understand WHY she's that way.

I'm excited to hear in the OP that Triss apparently shows up. IMO she was a strong second best waifu (after Shani, of course) in the games. Will probably report more opinions as I watch more.

[Chen]

First episode was s pretty good re-telling of The Lesser Evil, though Geralt figuring out Renfri’s plan was a bit confusing if you knew how it happened in the book. Second episode was also pretty solid and Yennefer’s new backstory was reasonably done. Haven’t had the chance to watch more yet but so far very solid.

For those who played the games they are all set WAY after the events in the books (and this show) so there are plenty of spoilers unless they decide to change things. The one I noticed right away was knowing which sorceresses will survive until later just by recognizing the names.

[Rynjin]

First episode was s pretty good re-telling of The Lesser Evil, though Geralt figuring out Renfri’s plan was a bit confusing if you knew how it happened in the book. Second episode was also pretty solid and Yennefer’s new backstory was reasonably done. Haven’t had the chance to watch more yet but so far very solid.

For those who played the games they are all set WAY after the events in the books (and this show) so there are plenty of spoilers unless they decide to change things. The one I noticed right away was knowing which sorceresses will survive until later just by recognizing the names.

Well, the cool thing about that is that there's plenty of places they could have died in the intervening...what, 10, 15 years? There was a whole purge of the Circle as I recall.

So knowing they're not alive (or even just not prominent) in the future isn't a big spoiler.

[Chen]

Well, the cool thing about that is that there's plenty of places they could have died in the intervening...what, 10, 15 years? There was a whole purge of the Circle as I recall.

So knowing they're not alive (or even just not prominent) in the future isn't a big spoiler.

I meant more the opposite in that I recognized a few of the names who I know survive until later.

[random11]

As someone who is unfamiliar with both the books and the game plot (aside from some unavoidable memes), I can safely say that the intro to the world is good enough to understand even if you know nothing about it.

While I have nothing to compare it with as an adaptation, I like the acting, and I think the main characters acting fits the creation as it was done for the show.

One minor part that bothered me is the pacing, specifically between episode 5 and 6.
Geralt and Yennefer act as if they know each other for some time, while they just met for one time, for no more than a day.
Not sure, but it feels like these are two stories with a lot of stories in between that were removed due to lack of time.

Still, it's good.
Have two more episodes to watch, and I bet it will leave me wanting more.

[Lemmy]

It's OK.

Most of the casting works fine (Triss is the only one that really doesn't convince. It doesn't help that she's little more than an extra in this show). Cavill in particular does a great job as Geralt. The actress for Ciri is also really good, specially for someone so young.

Are we supposed to dislike Yeneffer? Cause she's really unlikable... I honestly don't get why every character seems to be so impressed by her. I hope the next season focus more on Geralt and Ciri than on Yeneffer... Or that at least they make her more likable, because at least IMO, she is by far the weakest aspect of the show.

The convoluted timeline mess was a bit confusing, but more importantly: pointless. It feels like a silly gimmick that didn't add anything to the show.

[Saintheart]

Are we supposed to dislike Yeneffer? Cause she's really unlikable... I honestly don't get why every character seems to be so impressed by her.

I found Yennefer gratingly unpleasant in both her game and novel incarnations. I'd sort of taken it that Geralt and Yen's relationship is borderline-dysfunctional, they're both very damaged people in their own way. But then I'm a sucker for redheads and therefore unashamedly Team Triss in all significant choices in Witcher 3, so I might be biased there :)

[Olinser]

Yes, Yennefer comes across as a HUGE entitled bitch, but she still has decent character development. What it felt like to me was that she's almost portrayed as an addict. She got a taste of power, then threw away basically everything in pursuit of more, and when she got it (she's beautiful, powerful, and in the court position she wanted), she found out it was just another fleeting high. So she starts pursuing her next high (having a child), without ever really considering if it was a good idea.

I also liked the out-of-order timeline. It wasn't like a Tarantino movie (which I thoroughly enjoy, btw), where you get scenes out of order but the overall period of the movie is very short.

In this case I felt that it did a great job of conveying just how OLD people like Geralt and the Sorceresses really are. You casually cut back and forth over literally decades of time, while the principal characters don't age a day.

[Rynjin]

I found Yennefer gratingly unpleasant in both her game and novel incarnations. I'd sort of taken it that Geralt and Yen's relationship is borderline-dysfunctional, they're both very damaged people in their own way. But then I'm a sucker for redheads and therefore unashamedly Team Triss in all significant choices in Witcher 3, so I might be biased there :)

Speaking of, why'd they nerf Triss? I think that was the only casting choice that wasn't bang on, and it was a HUGE departure.

[Dragonus45]

Just finished the witcher. I don't get the people giving it bad reviews. the thing with the staggered plotlines being a tiny bit unnecessary, more an issue to have unexplained and not stick some dates in there to make it clear to people not familiar with the series then anything else even if they blatentley set up the plotline stuff as early as the first episode. But I think it was needed for letting them get Ciri's plot going early enough to get an actress cast and introduced while also showing off the various short stories that took place before the main novels start up. It gives things better pacing for when it moves into being more about Ciri then anyone else and helps give the world grounding. Even if Evil Snow White was a bit rushed the rest have all been damn near perfect adaptations of the various stories. Geralt, Jaskier, and Yennefer are damn near picture perfect casting as well, Triss was a bit flat but she didn’t much screen time we well see I guess . I like how its largely episodic and not rushing itself into nothing but arc focused binge episodes. Also I'm downloading witcher 3 again

[Rynjin]

The series made me almost...ALMOST re-download The Witcher to play through the series from the start again, but man I thought the game was dated when I initially played it (in 2012 or so) and I don't even want to think about what it feels like now. I do feel like the "rhythm game" combat and three fighting styles could have carried over to future games though, rather than the basic and boring "heavy and light attacks with a dodge roll" system.

I'll settle for hoping they get enough seasons to tell the game stories as well.

[Rodin]

In this case I felt that it did a great job of conveying just how OLD people like Geralt and the Sorceresses really are. You casually cut back and forth over literally decades of time, while the principal characters don't age a day.

The one thing that felt a bit off is Jaskier. It felt like there was a fair bit of time passing between the stories, but Jaskier never ages. I assume that this is just a budget restriction or something, but it did make it difficult to tell exactly how much time passes. He clearly manages to become a good bard and improve Geralt's reputation over a period of some years, but since he looks the same as when we first saw him...

[Dragonus45]

The one thing that felt a bit off is Jaskier. It felt like there was a fair bit of time passing between the stories, but Jaskier never ages. I assume that this is just a budget restriction or something, but it did make it difficult to tell exactly how much time passes. He clearly manages to become a good bard and improve Geralt's reputation over a period of some years, but since he looks the same as when we first saw him...

So ever since the great Conjunction of the Spheres everyone lives longer and ages more slowly. This is just more pronounced in people who happen to be mutants or sources and the like.

[Rynjin]

The one thing that felt a bit off is Jaskier. It felt like there was a fair bit of time passing between the stories, but Jaskier never ages. I assume that this is just a budget restriction or something, but it did make it difficult to tell exactly how much time passes. He clearly manages to become a good bard and improve Geralt's reputation over a period of some years, but since he looks the same as when we first saw him...

I definitely wouldn't have known it was ~12 years between the last episode and the current one at the time just from looking at Dandelion.

[Yora]

To be fair, Dandelion always seems strangely youthful.

"Dandelion, you are almost 40, still look like you're just 30, think you're still 20, and act like you're barely 10." :smallbiggrin:

[Chen]

Speaking of, why'd they nerf Triss? I think that was the only casting choice that wasn't bang on, and it was a HUGE departure.

Only saw the first episode with her but she didnt seem too far off. What was it that was so different? Or is it in later episodes?

[Thomas Cardew]

It's OK.

Most of the casting works fine (Triss is the only one that really doesn't convince. It doesn't help that she's little more than an extra in this show). Cavill in particular does a great job as Geralt. The actress for Ciri is also really good, specially for someone so young.

Are we supposed to dislike Yeneffer? Cause she's really unlikable... I honestly don't get why every character seems to be so impressed by her. I hope the next season focus more on Geralt and Ciri than on Yeneffer... Or that at least they make her more likable, because at least IMO, she is by far the weakest aspect of the show.

The convoluted timeline mess was a bit confusing, but more importantly: pointless. It feels like a silly gimmick that didn't add anything to the show.

Ciri's actress is 18, I don't quite think that counts as super young. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8463347/

I know people hate fantasy dates and title cards, but I really think just flashing a location and date at the beginning of each episode would have helped so much with the timeline thing.


Only saw the first episode with her but she didnt seem too far off. What was it that was so different? Or is it in later episodes?

Not sure what the other poster meant, the main criticisms I've seen of her seem to be around her hair color or her behavior in the battle in the later episodes. Tons of digital ink have been spilled over the appropriate color for Triss' hair, it's not really worth arguing over IMO. That said I'm on team redhead. As for power level, In the last battle for the show, Triss basically makes mushrooms release spores and summons a gate made of vines that doesn't even fill the doorway and lets soldiers burn her with a torch through it. Compare that to Triss in Witcher 3 at the battle of Kaer Mohen when she's functioning as artillery dropping massive fireballs at range (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do7_LYOcKVY&t=11m30s). With a straight up meteor swarm following at at about 15:30 in that video.

[Rynjin]

Only saw the first episode with her but she didnt seem too far off. What was it that was so different? Or is it in later episodes?

Well for one she looks different:

IMG]https://i.redd.it/33b7xa89q2u11.jpg[/IMG]

There's a half-joking theory making the rounds that Hollywood is trying to erase redheads from existence which gets less and less crazy by the day...

But for another she seems both less capable and has less of an edge to her. Mind you that might be something she'll get character development for, but she was weirdly too nice (not that Triss was an ******* or anything in the games, but she wasn't a font of irrepressible pure pureness either) and as mentioned doesn't seem to have the same magical oomph as I'd expect from her.

Normally I'd chalk it up to early installment weirdness, since I haven't read the books, but every other character was recognizable. Dandelion was Dandelion (well, he was Jaskier, but same diff), Geralt was Geralt, Yennefer was Yennefer, and Ciri was a kid so her personality being a bit different is understandable.

A lot of the other sorceresses had really good showings in the battle; particularly Yennefer and Sabrina Glevessig, but Triss was off from what I recognize her as being able to do from the games.

Again, like I said, could be early installment weirdness and this is some kind of turning point for her as a character, but it would also be kind of weird if Triss is the only character that gets a significant character arc in the books, though I guess that's possible.

[Lemmy]

Ciri's actress is 18, I don't quite think that counts as super young. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8463347/
That would make her even more convincing than I thought, then, wouldn't it? :smallbiggrin:

Seriously, though... I said "so young" not "super young". I knew she was older than her character, but didn't think she was 18.

[GloatingSwine]

Dandelion was Dandelion (well, he was Jaskier, but same diff).

Jaskier is his name in the Polish version. The direct English translation of that is "buttercup", but that wouldn't have worked quite as well in English so he got changed to a different meadow flower.

[Lemmy]

Jaskier is his name in the Polish version. The direct English translation of that is "buttercup", but that wouldn't have worked quite as well in English so he got changed to a different meadow flower.
It could work... If he had large green eyes, short black hair and no fingers.

[GloatingSwine]

It could work... If he had large green eyes, short black hair and no fingers.

Or he was a princess.

[Lemmy]

Or he was a princess.But then he wouldn't have any cool superpowers! Or a monkey archvillain!

[Bartmanhomer]

So anyway. I'm watching The Witcher with my other brother and I'm going to tell you my thoughts on the show.

So anyway I know for a fact that the show is based on a video game which I never play it. This TV show is about a mutated monster hunter Geralt who find people more wicked than a monster in the world. And this show is crazy. At the beginning of the first episode, people are prejudice to Geralt because they fear his kind. Then he fights this woman who he kills and he was banned from the village from fear and prejudiced. Then there was this hunchback female half-elf who was sold by this woman wizard. She was learning how to conjured by magic but unable to handle it. Then things got crazy. Geralt fought this monster who was cursed and he got thrashed but managed to beat it and the creature transforms into a female human. Then the female half-elf has plastic surgery in a medieval way and she was beautiful again. This show is great. I think it's very Emmy-worthy. I'll give this show 5 out of 5 stars. :smile:

[Keltest]

The show is actually based on the books, which came before the games.

[Bartmanhomer]

The show is actually based on the books, which came before the games.
Interesting. :smile:

[Olinser]

There's also already a Witcher thread.

[Bartmanhomer]

I know that Geralt alignment is True Neutral. He doesn't care about good, evil, law and chaos and remains indifferent from everybody else.

[GloatingSwine]

Geralt actually cares quite a lot about doing the right thing, he likes to say he doesn't care so people will think he's all aloof and above it, but when it comes down to it he'll stick up for people that need it.

(Which is probably for the best, being a Witcher is a terrible job, the pay's rubbish and you always end up covered in muck and goo. You need to be pretty altruistic to actually stick at it).

[Bartmanhomer]

Geralt actually cares quite a lot about doing the right thing, he likes to say he doesn't care so people will think he's all aloof and above it, but when it comes down to it he'll stick up for people that need it.

(Which is probably for the best, being a Witcher is a terrible job, the pay's rubbish and you always end up covered in muck and goo. You need to be pretty altruistic to actually stick at it).

So he's Neutral Good then? :smile:

[Rynjin]

So he's Neutral Good then? :smile:

That's always been what I pegged him as. He values doing good above most other things; honor, the law, the opinions of other people, all fall by the wayside compared to his own convictions and judgement of right and wrong.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's always been what I pegged him as. He values doing good above most other things; honour, the law, the opinions of other people, all fall by the wayside compared to his own convictions and judgement of right and wrong.

Ok, I'm cool with him being Neutral Good. I've watched more episode and he's being Neutral Good. :biggrin:

[Mastikator]

I saw the last episode of the season yesterday and without spoilers I like how it all seemed to come together, my only complaint would be that I wish they had put dates on the screen so we know when they change the time. You shouldn't have to find pertinent information outside the show for it to make sense. Because at first I thought everything was happening in chronological order and it took me until the final episode to puzzle it together.

I also like that Geralt curses a lot, it gives me the impression that while he's very powerful and resourceful he's not invincible. He curses because he's not in control of the situation, the monsters could kill him, a wrong decision could end him whether it's because of reputation or fangs.

After watching all of it I asked my brother (who has played all the games, I haven't) if Yennefer was a villain, he told me all sorcerers are bad people. I get what he's saying, they kinda are. None of them are sympathetic, but they're all terrifying.

All in all excellent show.

[Lord of the Helms]

I saw the last episode of the season yesterday and without spoilers I like how it all seemed to come together, my only complaint would be that I wish they had put dates on the screen so we know when they change the time. You shouldn't have to find pertinent information outside the show for it to make sense. Because at first I thought everything was happening in chronological order and it took me until the final episode to puzzle it together.



I actually rather liked that detail. It's a bit hard to pin down when Geralts time-line in the show begins, but with Yennefer, it's clear that her origin story long before meeting Geralts is shown from the beginning, and the way they show more and more clearly that it plays in different times was a nice touch. At the very latest, it should have been clear by the time Geralts is at the wedding feast in Cintra that is clearly set before Ciri is even born (which incidentally also had the most hilarious moment in the show for me), but there are plenty of other hints in Yennefers timeline too, especially when they reference Nilfgaard as a chaotic backwater where no-one would want to go.

If there's one thing that bugs me, it's that while Yennefers character seems spot on, her powers are wildly inconsistent. The episode with the Assassin gunning after the queen she was escorting ( which made no sense to begin with if the king wanted to have his wife killed) showed her running away from him rather than even trying to fight at all, at best slightly slowing down his attack creature. The episode with the Dragon had her casually paralyze the dwarves for what must have been multiple minutes at least, then fight the actual enemies showing up afterwards with Sword rather than Magic. Then in the final episode, she casually deflects fireballs and ends up being a person of mass destruction able do throw enough fire to devestate a whole army. That's a pretty enormous leap which can't really be explained by "stopped holding back" in my view.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

I am mixed on the show but after re-watching it again found it to be a mediocre fantasy show. The reasons are below based on what the show itself had to offer.

The time jumping narrative approach to telling the story did not work period. I understand the reason was to due to adapting the Last Wish book that contains all the prequel stuff but even so it would have been better to make it into a linear story with the occasional flashbacks as needed instead of time jumps.

Most of the acting fell short or was just bad to begin with. For instance, Anya Chalotra's acting was engaging at first but towards the end of the season lost its luster. While though the dialogue did contribute some aspect to this it seemed Chalotra didn't care by the final episodes. Freya Allan was hit or miss and some of the other cast's performance like Mimi Ndiweni and Anna Shaffer I found very stale. The only solid performance was Cavill who out of all the actors looked to have the most enthusiasm for the character he was playing to the very end.

Special effects were also hit or miss. It is pretty clear the show did not have a budget like Game of Thrones did but I expect better CGI. The quality was really on par with a Syfy movie (think Sharknado). What did surprise me was the effects of the monsters that required body suits which was very good. Costume choices were very hit or miss but location settings were pretty solid.

Fight scenes again were hit and miss. Some were awesome and others were pretty poor.

Getting back to the narrative, I will say this was hit or miss. For the Geralt storyline, as a whole it felt very monster of the week. Certain scenes did redeem it somewhat but on the whole not much. Yennifer's was by far the most engaging up to the point of her transformation but after that I felt it flopped with no further character development. Ciri's did nothing but show she is the McGuffin and at that not a very interesting one.

Lastly, certain scene choices were a clear cry of desperation as with the orgy scene. To me it served no purpose other than to say the show was just as edgy as what GoT was.

On the whole, if you take The Witcher as just another generic and forgettable fantasy show it is enjoyable in that regard. But for me it was again mediocre with a lot of room for improvement.

[Saintheart]

For the Geralt storyline, as a whole it felt very monster of the week.

That's probably a pretty literal job description for a witcher!

[Rynjin]

I think the format worked perfectly for Netflix, particularly with how short the season was.

Too many of these Netflix shows are frankly TIRING to watch, being filmed as though they're one big 13 hour long movie instead of a tv series. The episodic narrative makes for a much breezier and relaxing pace, thus making the show actually more fun to watch.

[Lemmy]

Even though I didn't like the constant time-skipping, I think they had a good reason for it:

Make the 3 main characters appear in every episode. Even if only for a scene or two.

[Eldan]

No problem with the time skipping. I thought some of the stories could have used some breathing room.

Also, really not convinced by the casting of some characters that are going to be important later on. Triss, especially, made almost no impression and I don't think I like their Vilgefortz. And if they go by the book storyline, Ciri will basically have to carry an entire season or two of the show by herself. Not sure she's good enough for that.

[Dienekes]

So, 4 episodes in now. It's good. I rather like it. Though when Triss identified herself as Triss I was a bit flabbergast. Now, I came from the books first. But I have to say, I enjoy her so much more in the games that game Triss has basically become Triss for me.

I could understand the changes if 1) it was more true to the books. But so far it isn't. Book Triss is kinda horrible.* Or 2) the actress was so damn good I wouldn't care, and no. She hasn't really impressed so far. Maybe she can show off her acting chops more down the line.

Anyway, Cavill seems to be having a lot of fun with the role. Which is great to see, you need that to get the audience on board some of the silliness that comes from the series.


*If anyone asks you Triss or Yen and you're going by the books, the answer is "Neither, Geralt can do better."

[LibraryOgre]

Wife and I watched the first two episodes. I found the first a little bit confusing, but it helped set some background. The second was much more enjoyable, and I look forward to continuing it. I have no familiarity with the Witcher at all (I had to look up on a wiki what a Witcher even was), so I think it argues pretty well for the show, at least with middle aged geeks.

[Thomas Cardew]

Wife and I watched the first two episodes. I found the first a little bit confusing, but it helped set some background. The second was much more enjoyable, and I look forward to continuing it. I have no familiarity with the Witcher at all (I had to look up on a wiki what a Witcher even was), so I think it argues pretty well for the show, at least with middle aged geeks.

This comment reminds of this (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2020/01/the-witcher-is-absurd-thats-why-its-brilliant/604297/) Atlantic review, particularly the last two paragraphs.


I suspect those timelines are partly to blame for the gulf between the critical and audience reception of the show—to video-game players, it’s second nature to turn to the internet when you get stuck. Why won’t this door open? Where is the sacred seal? How can I kill this boggle-eyed goat thing? Netflix’s version of The Witcher simply ports this approach to television. It’s the first time I’ve thought about a drama series needing a walkthrough.

In its own way, then, The Witcher is groundbreaking. Critics have wondered for decades now why games make such bad source material for drama. (Remember Alicia Vikander in the recent Tomb Raider? Michael Fassbender in Assassin’s Creed? Rihanna in Battleship? No? Don’t worry, no one else does either.) The Witcher bucks that trend, not just because it ultimately derives from books, but because it embraces, rather than rejects, what people love about video games. It is messy, and absurd, but also—it is fun.

I think that nails some of the issue, the audience's willingness to engage with the material outside the show if they want/need to know more. Some critics aren't just willing to do that at all. Of course some critics aren't even willing to do their own job so take that with a grain of salt. (https://reclaimthenet.org/entertainment-weekly-netflix-the-witcher/). On the whole I think you can enjoy an episode just by watching it. If you want more context or don't understand something, it's easy enough to look up the answer. But the show isn't going to bog itself down with a whole bunch of unnecessary detail/ exposition.

[Cikomyr]

I didn't cared for it. I finished it yesterday evening, and my girlfriend and I were pretty pissed at the journey we took.

1- the show is too much in love with its own lore and mythology. It throws kingdoms, names and historical events around without ever sufficiently establishing them, and hope that we get engage.

Must be fun to have an established knowledge of the books or/and the game, but I didn't had that. So the only kingdoms I remember being relevant was Nilfgaard, Ciren and the kingdom where the king ****ed his sister.

2- the show structure itself to be a middle ground between "having a serialized plot" and "stand alone episodes".

This leads to tepid individual episodes when taken on their own. There's too much overarching plot happening for me to enjoy an episode on its own (exception to episodes 3 with the Sister****er and Episode 6 with the Dragon, both of them having solid self contained stories that, had the show been more about that, I would have enjoyed more ).

However, the overarching plot is not satisfying.

3- the Overarching plot is not satisfying

The show is clearly structure around a mystery: what is Ciri's place in Destiny? That's a good mystery, I have to admit. That's the one thing that I found interesting after a bad opening episode.

Ciri's place in Destiny is the prime motivator of the bad guys. That's why they attack Ciren. That's why they recruit the doppelganger. That's why the doppelganger backstabs Nilfgaard. That's why Nilfgaard mobilises it's entire army at the end of the show. Even Yennifer points out Nilfgaard makes a strategic mistake that we know is about catching Ciri.

But we never get to know what the **** is up with that. It's not "she can do magic" because, people, we have seen 50 mages being outright murderer by Nilfgaard.

Speaking of Yennifer. I liked her character. I liked her story. I liked her journey.

She had no point in the ****ing plot at all, except turning the tide of a battle that had no buildup outside the episode where it was fought. She has no involvement with the central plot/mystery of the goddamn show.


Very disapointing. Acting was good, production value was good, effects were good. Story and lore was ****.

[Eldan]

A lot of that was down to the fact that the Witcher, for a long time, was a series of semi-connected short stories that had very little overarching plot. More like, say, a Conan than a Game of Thrones. Sapkowski only started writing books about the Witcher after a dozen short stories.

And the series tries to have its cake and eat it too: the plots of the episodes are based on the first short story collection for the most part, though they are in a different order. But Ciri isn't in any of those short stories at all. In fact, she's only introduced for the first time in the last story of the second short story collection.

So, the series tries to do two things at once: have an overarching plot, based on the later books, while simultaneously also adapting all the short stories that come chronologically earlier. Which causes the main problems of the series: the weird timelines that are decades apart, but shown at the same time and the extreme compression of the content of these short stories. None of the stories was really properly developed, most of them are missing a lot of context, some are missing almost everything.

I mean, does anyone who hasn't read the books even remember Filavandrel after the series? Or was there really any point at all to the dryads of Brokilon as presented?

[Kyberwulf]

Huh. I didn't get that at all. So much for trusting in your audience to not have to be spoonfed everything. I thought it did things pretty cool. It focused on what the characters were doing and how they saw things. I didn't mind that it didn't explain everything, and trust in that season two will explain more things to me.

[Eldan]

Yeah, but, like, a lot of the episode plots were entirely different in the short stories and had a lot more character depth. And many of those characters won't show up again for maybe several seasons, at which point, again, who will be remembering Filavandrel? And from what I remember, Brokilon and the dryads will never really come up again. They just cut out everything that made them really meaningful.

I do think that the series could have been improved a lot by giving various stories more time to breathe. Which they couldn't, since they limited themselves to one hour an episode and had to put some of the metaplot of the later books into each episode.

By this point going by just the short stories without the book metaplot, Yennefer is just a power hungry sorceress that Geralt runs into occasionally and is in love with. Cintra is just a kingdom that Geralt once came through and got involved in one of his usual weird adventures where a man with the head of a hedgehog tried to woo the princess. Nilfgaard is a nation far away in the south that is mostly defined by being a chaotic mess because the last king died and his heir vanished.

[Keltest]

Yeah, but, like, a lot of the episode plots were entirely different in the short stories and had a lot more character depth. And many of those characters won't show up again for maybe several seasons, at which point, again, who will be remembering Filavandrel? And from what I remember, Brokilon and the dryads will never really come up again. They just cut out everything that made them really meaningful.

I do think that the series could have been improved a lot by giving various stories more time to breathe. Which they couldn't, since they limited themselves to one hour an episode and had to put some of the metaplot of the later books into each episode.

By this point going by just the short stories without the book metaplot, Yennefer is just a power hungry sorceress that Geralt runs into occasionally and is in love with. Cintra is just a kingdom that Geralt once came through and got involved in one of his usual weird adventures where a man with the head of a hedgehog tried to woo the princess. Nilfgaard is a nation far away in the south that is mostly defined by being a chaotic mess because the last king died and his heir vanished.

You misremember. Brokilon does come up again. Geralt actually spends a moderate amount of time there, and meets a major character there later on.

[Cikomyr]

See, episode 3 was, for me, the episode that resonated best with me because it was a fantastic ghost/monster hunter story. All about uncovering shameful secret, figuring out how to hunt the muster, and a cool kick ass action scene.

You could have done *that*. Some high fantasy Supernatural kick-off. That was solid.

[Rynjin]

I didn't cared for it. I finished it yesterday evening, and my girlfriend and I were pretty pissed at the journey we took.

1- the show is too much in love with its own lore and mythology. It throws kingdoms, names and historical events around without ever sufficiently establishing them, and hope that we get engage.

Must be fun to have an established knowledge of the books or/and the game, but I didn't had that. So the only kingdoms I remember being relevant was Nilfgaard, Ciren and the kingdom where the king ****ed his sister.

I mean, those ARE the only ones that are relevant, so they're the only ones you need to know.

It's like starting any epic fantasy series. You might hear names long before learning their significance. This is good worldbuilding, as it keys the reader (or in this case viewer) in that the world is larger than what they know, but doesn't have the characters be idiots who don't know their own world's geography.


2- the show structure itself to be a middle ground between "having a serialized plot" and "stand alone episodes".

This leads to tepid individual episodes when taken on their own. There's too much overarching plot happening for me to enjoy an episode on its own (exception to episodes 3 with the Sister****er and Episode 6 with the Dragon, both of them having solid self contained stories that, had the show been more about that, I would have enjoyed more ).

This I agree with to an extent. The show would have been better had it been more serialized, but it's kind of a necessary evil for how they wanted to introduce the main character early on instead of having her show up midway through season 2 or something.


However, the overarching plot is not satisfying.

3- the Overarching plot is not satisfying

The show is clearly structure around a mystery: what is Ciri's place in Destiny? That's a good mystery, I have to admit. That's the one thing that I found interesting after a bad opening episode.

Ciri's place in Destiny is the prime motivator of the bad guys. That's why they attack Ciren. That's why they recruit the doppelganger. That's why the doppelganger backstabs Nilfgaard. That's why Nilfgaard mobilises it's entire army at the end of the show. Even Yennifer points out Nilfgaard makes a strategic mistake that we know is about catching Ciri.

But we never get to know what the **** is up with that. It's not "she can do magic" because, people, we have seen 50 mages being outright murderer by Nilfgaard.

Speaking of Yennifer. I liked her character. I liked her story. I liked her journey.

She had no point in the ****ing plot at all, except turning the tide of a battle that had no buildup outside the episode where it was fought. She has no involvement with the central plot/mystery of the goddamn show.


Very disapointing. Acting was good, production value was good, effects were good. Story and lore was ****.

I mean, the first season doesn't really HAVE a plot. It's just setup for a plot. Like the first season of most shows (or the first book of most series for that matter).

You meet most of the primary characters (even if some of them aren't actually named in the show...apparently one of the dwarves in the dragon episode is Yarpen Ziggrin?), you learn the instigating events for the main plot happening, and all the characters from their disparate backgrounds are brought together in one place, finally.

I'll also look askance at the "battle that had no buildup" comment. The battle was built up for the entire season. Nilfgaard attacks Cintra and is trying to push further north. They mention several times that Brenna is a key defensive position, and it's a big thing in episode 7 that about half of the Brotherhood wish to aid the North against Cintra, and half do not. The Brotherhood essentially splinters over this and the sorcerers and sorceresses go to aid in the war, hoping to stall Nilfgaard long enough for the Temerian army to arrive.

Keep in mind here, I haven't read the books either. That's just what is apparent from watching the show.

[LibraryOgre]

Imagine, for a moment, someone really liked Game of Thrones, and then tried to run a game based off that... but they didn't use a gritty system, so PCs include a superhuman warrior with some magic, a powerful wizard, and a bard.

They watched a game set in Hackmaster, and ran it in 5e D&D. The differences are Stark (pun fully intended)

[Cikomyr]

Nilfgaard "conquering the world" has not been setup at all.

What Nilfgaard has been from episode 1 to 6 is a threat to Ciri, and only Ciri. They conquered one city, apparently just to get to her. They mobilize their army to get to her.

And then suddenly Nilfgaard is this existential threat to the Free People of Middle Earth of whatnot during episode 7 that requires the immediate intervention of the Mages, but, you know, not really. Because most mages didn't voted to join the fight.

Sorry, no. The buildup wasn't there. They were the anonymous bad guys conquering Ciren at the first episode, and that's it.

[Rynjin]

Nilfgaard "conquering the world" has not been setup at all.

What Nilfgaard has been from episode 1 to 6 is a threat to Ciri, and only Ciri. They conquered one city, apparently just to get to her. They mobilize their army to get to her.

And then suddenly Nilfgaard is this existential threat to the Free People of Middle Earth of whatnot during episode 7 that requires the immediate intervention of the Mages, but, you know, not really. Because most mages didn't voted to join the fight.

Sorry, no. The buildup wasn't there. They were the anonymous bad guys conquering Ciren at the first episode, and that's it.

Did you miss the part where they set up Cintra's army as being one of the best in the world at the time, with not one but two highly talented generals/nobility and alliances with another major power (Skeligge and its navy)? And Cintra wasn't just one city; they conquered the entire country (the city you see fall is the CAPITAL).

Mind you they set that up AFTER the episode where they show Cintra falling, but it's all there, and puts into context why the conflict with Nilfgaard is important. They absolutely rolled over their closest geographical neighbor and were going to continue rolling into the Northern Kingdoms unless stopped.

It is pretty clearly laid out of you watched the whole series, you just need to rearrange the events in order. Nilfgaard was a country many estimated as a weak, backwater nation that went through two major regime changes over the course of the last century. The most recent emperor (who hasn't appeared on screen yet, but WILL be a major character), with the help of Fringilla (the black sorceress, if you don't remember her name) whipped Nilfgaard into a terrifyingly strong military power with an eye for conquest.

It draws parallels to many other nations throughout history; looked down on, dismissed, left alone...and then people are completely blindsided that the country has utterly changed itself over the course of a few generations.

[Cikomyr]

It is pretty clearly laid out of you watched the whole series, you just need to rearrange the events in order. Nilfgaard was a country many estimated as a weak, backwater nation that went through two major regime changes over the course of the last century. The most recent emperor (who hasn't appeared on screen yet, but WILL be a major character), with the help of Fringilla (the black sorceress, if you don't remember her name) whipped Nilfgaard into a terrifyingly strong military power with an eye for conquest.


Aaaand we go back to the utter lack of structure of that show.

Had the events been displayed in chronological order, where we first see the might of Citra, then the crack, then the fall to Nilfgaard.

Had we been made aware of the slow but sure rise of Nilfgaard as a threatening power over the course of the series, culminating in the fall of the Citran capital, the escape of Ciri, and her apparently inevitable fate, only halted by the last minute hail Mary of the mage no one thought was ever going to make a difference.

But no. We don't get that. When we see Nilfgaard, we have no idea Citra is supposed to be this high and mighty power, so there no resonance to their fall. When we learn of Citra's military might, we only witness Nilfgaard as a pathetic pretender laughed at by all, so there is no impact to their threat.

And for most of the show, Nilfgaard is just a doppleganger agent who turns on their employer, a few soldiers and a few scheming peoples. Until THE GATES OF MORDOR HAVE OPENED AND WE MUST HAVE THE LAST ALLIANCE OF ELVES AND MEN

[Rynjin]

Aaaand we go back to the utter lack of structure of that show.

Had the events been displayed in chronological order, where we first see the might of Citra, then the crack, then the fall to Nilfgaard.

Had we been made aware of the slow but sure rise of Nilfgaard as a threatening power over the course of the series, culminating in the fall of the Citran capital, the escape of Ciri, and her apparently inevitable fate, only halted by the last minute hail Mary of the mage no one thought was ever going to make a difference.

But no. We don't get that. When we see Nilfgaard, we have no idea Citra is supposed to be this high and mighty power, so there no resonance to their fall. When we learn of Citra's military might, we only witness Nilfgaard as a pathetic pretender laughed at by all, so there is no impact to their threat.

And for most of the show, Nilfgaard is just a doppleganger agent who turns on their employer, a few soldiers and a few scheming peoples. Until THE GATES OF MORDOR HAVE OPENED AND WE MUST HAVE THE LAST ALLIANCE OF ELVES AND MEN

Did you miss the several times (at least 3, maybe more) they showed how huge the Nilfgaardian army was and how much it worried everyone who saw it. The "tide of black and gold" comment in the dragon episode, the view of how vast their army was and how they slaughtered every man, woman, and child in a capital city in the second episode?

The chronology wasn't an issue here.

[Cikomyr]

Did you miss the several times (at least 3, maybe more) they showed how huge the Nilfgaardian army was and how much it worried everyone who saw it. The "tide of black and gold" comment in the dragon episode, the view of how vast their army was and how they slaughtered every man, woman, and child in a capital city in the second episode?

The chronology wasn't an issue here.

When?

Episode 1. Episode 7?

[Thomas Cardew]

The slaughter was in episode 1... Also in that episode they're taking about the invasion of the whole north,
the queen just thinks it is going to be somewhere else first. Then in forest episode they talk about being able to spare 10 (20? Idr the specific number) thousand troops from these invasion to conquer the forest if needed. Nilfgaard as a threat to entire North is set up from the start.

Side note: Netflix released a map and timeline for the show here. (https://www.witchernetflix.com/en-gb) Having dates really helps me order events, I stand by my thoughts earlier that if they'd just flashed a location and date in their establishing shots for each storyline everything would have made much more sense.

[Eldan]

The structure of the show was atrocious.

You know what doesn't help? That Queen Calanthe, the Lioness of Cintra, looks pretty much the same age as a mother and as a grandmother, decades apart.

[Cikomyr]

The slaughter was in episode 1... Also in that episode they're taking about the invasion of the whole north,
the queen just thinks it is going to be somewhere else first. Then in forest episode they talk about being able to spare 10 (20? Idr the specific number) thousand troops from these invasion to conquer the forest if needed. Nilfgaard as a threat to entire North is set up from the start.

Side note: Netflix released a map and timeline for the show here. (https://www.witchernetflix.com/en-gb) Having dates really helps me order events, I stand by my thoughts earlier that if they'd just flashed a location and date in their establishing shots for each storyline everything would have made much more sense.

So the show tells us, not show us.

We are never felt the threat of Nilfgaard to the overall people of Middle Earth. We are told once in episode 1, and then there's this whole debate scene in episode 7. Like I keep saying, Nilfgaard is showing itself to be a real and genuine threat to Ciri. And its a good threat, we are made to care about that danger.

But, like I keep saying, for such an existential threat to the Last Alliance of Men and Elves, people didn't give a **** about Mordor conquering apparently half the goddamn world.

Wizards don't give a ****. Most of them don't anyway. Northern kingdoms don't either, as we learn that only two kingdoms that had to be mustered by the wizards to get moving.

And in won't even get in the plot point that they could have blown up the damn bridge.

The show is badly structured, and I am not even talking about the chronology. You can have an achronological show with a proper structure.

Either that, or just focus on your individual episodes so you have a cool monster hunt.

[Keltest]

So the show tells us, not show us.

We are never felt the threat of Nilfgaard to the overall people of Middle Earth. We are told once in episode 1, and then there's this whole debate scene in episode 7. Like I keep saying, Nilfgaard is showing itself to be a real and genuine threat to Ciri. And its a good threat, we are made to care about that danger.

But, like I keep saying, for such an existential threat to the Last Alliance of Men and Elves, people didn't give a **** about Mordor conquering apparently half the goddamn world.

Wizards don't give a ****. Most of them don't anyway. Northern kingdoms don't either, as we learn that only two kingdoms that had to be mustered by the wizards to get moving.

And in won't even get in the plot point that they could have blown up the damn bridge.

The show is badly structured, and I am not even talking about the chronology. You can have an achronological show with a proper structure.

Either that, or just focus on your individual episodes so you have a cool monster hunt.

In what way is showing them have a freaking massive army of fanatics backed by incredibly powerful and dangerous combat mages not showing their strength? Cintra is described as a major military power led by a competent and dangerous queen, and they get rolled over.

[Cikomyr]

In what way is showing them have a freaking massive army of fanatics backed by incredibly powerful and dangerous combat mages not showing their strength? Cintra is described as a major military power led by a competent and dangerous queen, and they get rolled over.

We are shown an army in episode 1, but we have no idea of how large it is supposed to be or how impressive that they beat Cintra

We are shown a rather large army in episode 7. I suppose that's when the show remembered that it's plotline was supposed to be about Nilfgaard as more than child chaser.

[LibraryOgre]

The structure of the show was atrocious.

You know what doesn't help? That Queen Calanthe, the Lioness of Cintra, looks pretty much the same age as a mother and as a grandmother, decades apart.

About 15 years, given the age of Ciri. She's flirting with Geralt while trying to give away her daughter's hand (which Duny claims, and Geralt goes all Law of Suprise), then looks about the same at her death when Cintra falls, and Ciri runs into the forest.

The achronological nature of the story is a bit of a barrier, but I don't know that a straight chronology would've served better.

[Keltest]

About 15 years, given the age of Ciri. She's flirting with Geralt while trying to give away her daughter's hand (which Duny claims, and Geralt goes all Law of Suprise), then looks about the same at her death when Cintra falls, and Ciri runs into the forest.

The achronological nature of the story is a bit of a barrier, but I don't know that a straight chronology would've served better.

I think its mostly only a problem because it isn't immediately obvious. If things had been dated, it would have been clearer.

[crayzz]

We are shown an army in episode 1, but we have no idea of how large it is supposed to be or how impressive that they beat Cintra

We are shown a rather large army in episode 7. I suppose that's when the show remembered that it's plotline was supposed to be about Nilfgaard as more than child chaser.

Yeah, we're told Cintra is a great military power, but we dont really see it anywhere. We see the queen return to court covered in blood and talking about some victory somewhere, and that's about it.

When nilfgaard takes over, we don't really see much resistance. From what we're shown, it could have been just a few hundred men and a hand full of mages taking over the city.

The might of nilfgaard and cintra both are talked about more than they're demonstrated, so the insistence that nilfgaard is any kind of existential threat to the continent at large kinda comes out of left field.

There was a fair bit of this kind of "show dont tell" problems. For instance, we see Geralt and Yen develop an ongoing relationship purely through flashback montage. That's the kind of thing that could have worked, except they just met the episode prior. It comes off as rushed backfill, like "oh yeah, these two totally have a storied history together that we forgot to show you." Its fine for a plot summary, but it makes for poor plot.

Had they met earlier in the series and had several meetings throughout the series to establish that they really did have a history together, adding the flashbacks as an accompaniment to that established history could have been really powerful. But on it's own, it's just kinda lackluster.

These flaws are forgivable. The first season is trying to do a lot at once, with 3 main characters who have totally separate, stories, complex geopolitical happenings, lots of lore to establish, dozens of minor characters who are ultimately important to the plot in some minor way, and each episode needs to have enough of it's own plot to be interesting.

I liked it well enough, but it falls short on more than a few of its goals, and I can't really blame anyone for not liking it for those reasons. The lackluster critical reception seems fair, to me. If this sort of thing isnt already up your alley, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to you.

EDIT

The chronology thing is bad because there practically no visual cues of when something takes place. With a few exceptions, most characters look identical, so you have to wait until enough context is given through plot and dialogue to establish when something happens. And while theres a lot to be said for trusting your audience, not much is gained from being this vague about the chronology. It just makes things harder on the audience for no real payoff besides a moment of "oh, right, this must be in the future, then."

It wouldn't even have to be explicit dates flashed everywhere. Just a few noticeable design differences in some of the major characters would do it (e.g. its trivial dating much of Yen's plot since, you know, she looked massively different way back when).

DOUBLE EDIT

On the topic of show, dont tell:

We get a few references to Nilfgaard as a worthless backwater, but the flat out best scenes that establish that are the scenes where Yen and Fringilla, in turn, learn they are being sent to Nilfgaard rather than elsewhere. Most other mentions of Nilfgaard's geopolitical position fall really hard on the "tell" side of things. But two cunning, viciously power hungry sorceresses vying to get out of that assignment is more impactful, more subtle, and does more to advance the plot than anything else we're shown. That was A+ worldbuilding and story telling.

[Kyberwulf]

There goes that we... thing . We.. didn't have problems following the show.. you. Had problems. I caught on the first episode. It was a little confusing at first. By episode 3 it was easy to follow.


This is why the media has to spell out EVERYTHING for people. Because they can't read between the lines. Yeah, we don't have to be told that they are the strongest. Because we are told they are annnnd all the other characters don't dispute this claim. So I will take it on faith.

[Cikomyr]

There goes that we... thing . We.. didn't have problems following the show.. you. Had problems. I caught on the first episode. It was a little confusing at first. By episode 3 it was easy to follow.

Have you had any prior knowledge of the witcher lore, via books or games?



This is why the media has to spell out EVERYTHING for people. Because they can't read between the lines.

Hell yhea. A show needs to be made clear about the **** it's ****ting about. How revolutionary.

I don't have issue following complex plot most of the time. But a show with a complex and intricate plot will do effort in one of the two following solutions: 1- spelling out certain elements to ground itself to give us sufficient understanding so we can appreciate the story on display and make the show an enjoyable experience. I feel like the first episodes of The Expanse worked hard to ground the show about the crappy life of belter and their dependency on water.

2- Alternatively, it can provide us with a familiar story beat and story cycle that is enjoyable in of itself, independent of the overall plot. Supernatural was initially like that, grounding the show in "here's the monster, here's the investigation, here's how we beat it". That sort of show first works on making us familiar with the who and the how before throwing large plot elements in our face.

The Witcher does neither. There is no theme or point that grounds the first episodes. Episode 1 and 2 Geralt-specific plots are boring, pointless and meandering that take itself way too seriously. There are no thematic repetition. Also, there is no repetition of story beat that would allow us to build familiarity with Geralt either.

I seriously thought Ciri was one of the "child born during the eclipse" because the wizard of episode 1 made such a big deal about this, and I thought it was the unifying plot. But no, it was just a random plot point thrown in because they wanted to fill 30 minutes of air time, with no purpose or development.


Yeah, we don't have to be told that they are the strongest. Because we are told they are annnnd all the other characters don't dispute this claim. So I will take it on faith.

It's mentioned in murmur once in episode 1, and then brought back again in episode 7. More than half of the series is not about them being world conquering nation, but being blond little girl chasers.

[LibraryOgre]

There goes that we... thing . We.. didn't have problems following the show.. you. Had problems. I caught on the first episode. It was a little confusing at first. By episode 3 it was easy to follow.



Have you had any prior knowledge of the witcher lore, via books or games?


I did not, and I followed it pretty well. Only thing I looked up was what a Witcher actually WAS (i.e. what made them distinct from a regular monster-hunter), and that was eventually revealed.

[Lemmy]

While I think Cykomir's complaints are bllwn a tad out of proportion, the timelines were indeed a bit confusing... Mostly because of two factors:

1- There is no indication anywhere that things are taking place in different periods. I only realized that was the case when I saw the queen again and went "Wait... Isn't she dead? Did I miss something?". But fine... I guess it could be considered a (pointless) mini twist.

2- And this is a big one: Other than Ciri, NO ONE ****ING AGES. 12 years go by and everyone stays exactly the same. That makes sense for Witchers and Mages, but even Dandelion appears to be 20 something in every episode.

I think they did it this way so that Geralt, Ciri and Yennifer can appear in all episodes... But it's a pain in the ass at first.

[Keltest]

While I think Cykomir's complaints are bllwn a tad out of proportion, the timelines were indeed a bit confusing... Mostly because of two factors:

1- There is no indication anywhere that things are taking place in different periods. I only realized that was the case when I saw the queen again and went "Wait... Isn't she dead? Did I miss something?". But fine... I guess it could be considered a (pointless) mini twist.

2- And this is a big one: Other than Ciri, NO ONE ****ING AGES. 12 years go by and everyone stays exactly the same. That makes sense for Witchers and Mages, but even Dandelion appears to be 20 something in every episode.

I think they did it this way so that Geralt, Ciri and Yennifer can appear in all episodes... But it's a pain in the ass at first.

Dandelion looking inexplicably youthful is actually a characteristic from the books. He is at one point described as being about a decade older than he looks, and two decades older than he acts.

[Lemmy]

Dandelion looking inexplicably youthful is actually a characteristic from the books. He is at one point described as being about a decade older than he looks, and two decades older than he acts.
Which doesn't make it any better... It stills makes it confusing.

Besides, he isn't the only who doesn't age. No one does (except Ciri). And hell... Even if he didn't age, there could still be some sign of passage of time,a beard, a scar, a different haircut. The show tells us it all happens over the course of 12 years, but for the most part, it looks like everything takes place over the course of a few weeks at most.

[The Glyphstone]

See, episode 3 was, for me, the episode that resonated best with me because it was a fantastic ghost/monster hunter story. All about uncovering shameful secret, figuring out how to hunt the muster, and a cool kick ass action scene.

You could have done *that*. Some high fantasy Supernatural kick-off. That was solid.

So, a medieval/high fantasy Grimm?

[Cikomyr]

So, a medieval/high fantasy Grimm?

The Witcher character and setting would serve perfectly for such a premise.

Like I said, there is a lot to like about the series. It's just that one of the biggest thing the show cares about crash and burns for me

[Kyberwulf]

That's because they AREN'T a world conquering nation.. per se. They meaning the bad guys' leader is going g for the girl. That is his sole purpose for going. I mean the world conquering is a secondary objective. You can tell that by how he sends so much resources after her. Or is willing to. No I haven't read the books or played the game.

From what I seen, they have done a normal job of transferring mediums. Meaning so-so. You guys just seem to be trying to start a hate wagon.

[Keltest]

Which doesn't make it any better... It stills makes it confusing.

Besides, he isn't the only who doesn't age. No one does (except Ciri). And hell... Even if he didn't age, there could still be some sign of passage of time,a beard, a scar, a different haircut. The show tells us it all happens over the course of 12 years, but for the most part, it looks like everything takes place over the course of a few weeks at most.

Calanthe, Dandelion, and Eist are the only normal humans who appear in multiple episodes across the time skip. All the rest are mages, who explicitly control their appearance through magic and live exceptionally long times, or is Geralt, who doesnt physically age at a noticeable rate and keeps to one appearance both out of preference and cheapness. So yes, most of the recurring characters literally don't age, because theyre magic, and the show says as much.

[Lemmy]

Calanthe, Dandelion, and Eist are the only normal humans who appear in multiple episodes across the time skip. All the rest are mages, who explicitly control their appearance through magic and live exceptionally long times, or is Geralt, who doesnt physically age at a noticeable rate and keeps to one appearance both out of preference and cheapness. So yes, most of the recurring characters literally don't age, because theyre magic, and the show says as much.
1- Those normal humans are pretty prominent and still don't age at all.
2- None of that changes the fact that there's no visual clue that time has passed. Even if there was justification for every single character being youthful, even if they were all mages/witchers/whatever, it still means there's no visible sign of passage of time. No one grows a beard, gain/lose weight, gets a tattoo or even changes their haircut. Hell! They barely even change their clothes! So when it's "revealed" that we've been following 3 separate timelines, instead of it being clever, it's just lazy and confusing.


From what I seen, they have done a normal job of transferring mediums. Meaning so-so. You guys just seem to be trying to start a hate wagon.Wut?

I'm not " trying to start a hate wagon" (why is it that every criticism nowadays is answered with these dumb accusations?).

I enjoyed the series well enough... It isn't amazing, but it's still pretty good. I just think that the time-skips weren't well done. It's not a deal-breaker, but it's a flaw, IMO.

[Kyberwulf]

Lol. In a world where magic exists. And they magic viagra, you are complaining that the humans we see don't age? I think they could have magic mascara or something to that effect. We don't see many reaccurring humans.

I am not saying anyone here in particular is starting anything. The hate train is already moving. People are just jumping in the new car.

I agree the show isn't stellar or anything. But it's not worth the vitriol some people are laying on it.

[Lemmy]

Lol. In a world where magic exists. And they magic viagra, you are complaining that the humans we see don't age? I think they could have magic mascara or something to that effect. We don't see many reaccurring humans."Magic exists, therefore all inconsistencies flaws in presentation are justified" is the laziest of lazy cop-outs. They never mention anything about magic make-up (closest thing we get is the mages modifying their own appearance).And as I already said twice, it's not just about aging. The character physically change at all.

It's a flaw in visual presentation. One that could be easily avoided too... Have the characters have slightly longer/shorter hair in different time periods. Have Geralt have a barely noticeable scar in one of the timelines, but not the others, have one of Yennefer's customers actually use some rejuvenating makeup... That way, it would initially look like a mistake and inconsistency, would then turn out to be intentional. It'd have made the mini-"twist" feel rather clever, rather than cheap and lazy.

It's a pretty minor flaw. It doesn't harm the story much... But it's there. And it's indeed a flaw. It didn't bother me much, but I felt it was worth saying that while the criticism made by another poster is hyperbolic, it's not completely unfounded.

[Rodin]

The first clue I had was the seasons. The stuff with Ciri happens in the dead of winter, while Geralt's stuff happens in the spring/summer. Once they were both in the snow, I knew that they would be meeting soon. And they did.

It was hard to tell when Yennefer's storyline was, but she explicitly states at one point that she's been doing the ambassador thing for years. The timeline of Yennefer's story also doesn't matter that much - it happens some indeterminate time in the past, but there's no connection to the other storylines until she meets up with Geralt.

For that matter, the timeline of Geralt's stuff doesn't matter that much either - it too is just "in the past" up until the point he attends the banquet in Cintra. It could be 6 months or 50 years. The only constraint is Dandelion.

Once I knew the timelines existed it was no problem keeping them straight.

[Lord of the Helms]

There goes that we... thing . We.. didn't have problems following the show.. you. Had problems. I caught on the first episode. It was a little confusing at first. By episode 3 it was easy to follow.


This is why the media has to spell out EVERYTHING for people. Because they can't read between the lines. Yeah, we don't have to be told that they are the strongest. Because we are told they are annnnd all the other characters don't dispute this claim. So I will take it on faith.

Now I did not catch on in the first or second episode (though I guess there are cues for that), but the third episode is definitely the point where anybody paying attention is able to catch on, when the mages refer to Nilfgaard as a poorly-run nation in need of help to be fixed, Calanthe as a young princess who has not yet succeeded her father and, most obviously, see Foltest as a grown man in Geralt's story and a young boy with his still-alive sister in Yennefer's (being called out, by name, by his mother to "leave your sister alone"). So I get that it's not spelled out from the beginning (though apparently hinted at e.g. with the different seasons), and probably intentionally so, but after episode 3, it's plain to see.

[JadedDM]

When my roommate and I were watching, once we realized that each storyline took place in a different time, we started calling them the past (Yennifer), the present (Geralt) and the future (Ciri) to help tell them apart. So we'd watch a scene with Geralt, then the scene would switch over to Yennifer and we were like, "Okay, we're back in the past now."

(Of course, eventually the past and present merged, and then there were only the present and future, which eventually also merged at the very end.)

[GloatingSwine]

The first clue I had was the seasons. The stuff with Ciri happens in the dead of winter, while Geralt's stuff happens in the spring/summer. Once they were both in the snow, I knew that they would be meeting soon. And they did.

It was hard to tell when Yennefer's storyline was, but she explicitly states at one point that she's been doing the ambassador thing for years. The timeline of Yennefer's story also doesn't matter that much - it happens some indeterminate time in the past, but there's no connection to the other storylines until she meets up with Geralt.

For that matter, the timeline of Geralt's stuff doesn't matter that much either - it too is just "in the past" up until the point he attends the banquet in Cintra. It could be 6 months or 50 years. The only constraint is Dandelion.

Once I knew the timelines existed it was no problem keeping them straight.


AFAICT Yennefer's story is the earliest, then Geralt's, then Ciri's. Yennefer is a youngish woman so it would be ca. 1195 (She was born in 1173), Dandelion meets Geralt probably in his mid to late 20s and he's born in 1229, so sometime in the mid to late 1240s, and the Slaughter of Cintra is in 1263.

[Rynjin]

"Magic exists, therefore all inconsistencies flaws in presentation are justified" is the laziest of lazy cop-outs. They never mention anything about magic make-up (closest thing we get is the mages modifying their own appearance).And as I already said twice, it's not just about aging. The character physically change at all.

It's a flaw in visual presentation. One that could be easily avoided too... Have the characters have slightly longer/shorter hair in different time periods. Have Geralt have a barely noticeable scar in one of the timelines, but not the others, have one of Yennefer's customers actually use some rejuvenating makeup... That way, it would initially look like a mistake and inconsistency, would then turn out to be intentional. It'd have made the mini-"twist" feel rather clever, rather than cheap and lazy.

It's a pretty minor flaw. It doesn't harm the story much... But it's there. And it's indeed a flaw. It didn't bother me much, but I felt it was worth saying that while the criticism made by another poster is hyperbolic, it's not completely unfounded.

The problem is they're kind of constrained by the source material(s) in that regard, especially RE: Geralt scars.

Geralt does eventually get a nasty facial scar (as seen in the games) but it's not until after the books end as I recall.

And neither really change their appearance over time because let's be real...people just kind of settle into a default look after a while without some outside factor forcing them to change it.

[Thomas Cardew]

Yes but something as basic as the Hollywood equivalent of baby powder in Calanthe and Eist's hair would have help a lot in demonstrating the passage of time. Secondly while magic make up is definitely a thing in this setting, Yny's lilac and gooseberry perfume as the most obvious example, it's also one of the first things that should be tossed in a television adaptation (especially for non mages/ non ageless witchers) to help visually show the passage of time.

[Saintheart]

Sounds like what's needed is a fan edit of the 8 episodes into chronological order...

[crayzz]

Sounds like what's needed is a fan edit of the 8 episodes into chronological order...

I don't think so! For one thing, the erratic chronology is too ingrained in the structure of the show. You'd also lose powerful elements like the dramatic irony of Cintra's court mocking the Nilfgaard prince (was he a prince? I don't remember his exact ranking).

Jumping around in time as the stories progress was a good idea and I'm glad they tried it. It would have been better had there been some better visual cues (minor costume design changes, though someone upthread mentioned the seasons changing which did go over my head) in my opinion, but as is figuring out what's going on when wasn't that hard (though I knew about the messed up chronology going into the show, so I suspect I was better prepared for it than someone going in blind). It's just mildly annoying juggling the various timelines, and the moments of confusion, however brief, don't really add anything to the experience of watching it. It's not like Arrival where the messed up chronology is the point.



And neither really change their appearance over time because let's be real...people just kind of settle into a default look after a while without some outside factor forcing them to change it.

10+ years is a long time. Minor changes sneaking in (e.g. Geralt's outfit gets messed up by a monster, and he finds himself unable to reproduce his outfit exactly as before, barbers are a luxury and you don't notice your self haircuts are drifting longer or shorter) is something that would have been plausible, I think.

[Keltest]

10+ years is a long time. Minor changes sneaking in (e.g. Geralt's outfit gets messed up by a monster, and he finds himself unable to reproduce his outfit exactly as before, barbers are a luxury and you don't notice your self haircuts are drifting longer or shorter) is something that would have been plausible, I think.

So theyre supposed to make a dozen or so different variants on Geralt's outfit with minimal changes done to give tiny subtle hints that his story isn't happening over the course of a week even when things like seasonal changes show up? Im not convinced that you would have noticed that even if they had done it.

[Cikomyr]

I am still wondering what was the point of the Geralt stories of first and second episodes in the overall plot

[Keltest]

I am still wondering what was the point of the Geralt stories of first and second episodes in the overall plot

The first establishes who Geralt is, what he does, and how he is perceived by people (and why). The second links him to Dandelion and introduces Elves to the setting, as well as making it pretty clear what state theyre in. The latter, in particular, is going to become important if they follow the plot of the main books in any followup seasons, since the first proper one is even titled Blood of Elves.

[Saintheart]

As for me, I'm enjoying a certain comment/joke that's coming up frequently on Youtube videos from the show:


"Nice! 60 fps, ray trace, Nvidia Hairworks looks great. I just wish the guy doing this playthrough would go keyboard and mouse rather than controller, and give us more time to read the dialogue options before he chooses one."

[crayzz]

So theyre supposed to make a dozen or so different variants on Geralt's outfit with minimal changes done to give tiny subtle hints that his story isn't happening over the course of a week even when things like seasonal changes show up? Im not convinced that you would have noticed that even if they had done it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Theres decades between the time skips, I'm not asking for a full wardrobe change each week.

The seasonal changes also arent /that/ helpful. Its consistently winter for Ciri AFAIR, but there were a few years between Jaskier's 1st and 2nd meeting with Geralt in the series, and it was summer in both.

[Rynjin]

I dunno if you noticed, but Geralt's outfit DOES change several times.

[crayzz]

I dunno if you noticed, but Geralt's outfit DOES change several times.

It does! I pulled the "his outfit got messed up" example from the show. It's not really useful for dating, however.

Outfit changes in general also just aren't that useful for a character who mostly wears various well-detailed outfits of black and brown. You'd probably need some other costume change to work as a indication of date.

[Eldan]

Obviously, Geralt should wear more of his game outfits.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNo57U_UkAAOgE-.jpg
https://i.redd.it/hxfwwef968qz.jpg
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/witcher/images/0/07/Tw3_Blood_and_Wine_The_Warble_of_Smitten_Knight.jp g/revision/latest?cb=20160527154545
https://static.giga.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/witcher3-skellige-r%C3%BCstungsset.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-9dP23hddb0/maxresdefault.jpg
https://gamepedia.cursecdn.com/witcher_gamepedia/thumb/d/d5/Tw3_armor_angrenian_cuirass.png/250px-Tw3_armor_angrenian_cuirass.png?version=8fad05705f da3ad6d2285707365417ff
https://gamepedia.cursecdn.com/witcher_gamepedia/thumb/5/5d/Tw3_armor_kaedweni_cuirass.png/250px-Tw3_armor_kaedweni_cuirass.png?version=4780a6bf2b4 c9662cab896c6c7780801


Get some colour in there!

[Spore]

Obviously, Geralt should wear more of his game outfits.


While I agree on anything that supports visual diversity, this wouldn't really support the idea of Geralt constantly being on his last crowns.

"Hey, Mr Witcher person, why don't you sell some of your outfits when you're so strapped for cash."
"You see, that armor set right there gives me +1 to alchemy and to bomb damage. I can't possibly do that."
"Is it magical or how does that work?"
"Heck if I know. Maybe the bandoliers strap my manhood down so I don't get distracted and sweep the chemicals off the table."

[Eldan]

I think I forgot the sarcasm smiley. I also didn't manage to find any of the truly hideous witcher 3 outfits on google. But Geralt needs more striped poofy sleves and bright shiny gold boots.

[Saintheart]

Well, after having had a look at the first two episodes the feeling I've got is: not as good as Season 1 Game of Thrones, but definitely better than Season 8 Game of Thrones, so there's that.

There's a lot of expositionary speeches, which from one point of view I get since they wanted to try and get people acquainted with the world quickly, but most of the characters - bar Henry Cavill, he's got the character right on the rails already - are a little hammy for my liking, especially Stregobor and that elven outlaw leader (I think the whole "racist against elves" plotline could've used a bit more time, it appears a bit rushed to me and the confrontation between Geralt and the elven outlaw left me mostly cold unfortunately.)

I'm still enjoying it right now anyway.

[Olinser]

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/371527022016725013/664993578187227138/2020-01-09.png

[LibraryOgre]

I keep singing the song as "Drop a coin on your Witcher", which is not the NOT the song.

[Imbalance]

We finally caught up to this series and enjoyed it. Any time line confusion was resolved a few eps in, having never fully experienced any of the source material. Looking forward to more.

[Dragonus45]

Sounds like what's needed is a fan edit of the 8 episodes into chronological order...

I think just properly labeling where we are in the plot as time goes on would make more sense. There is no real storytelling purpose served by having it be treated like a surprise or a twist by not mentioning stuff along the lines of X years ago or X years later in most scenes.

[BisectedBrioche]

Personally I liked the offset storylines.

It wasn't quite Baccano!, but it still felt satisfying to feel everything slide into place.

[Natteregn]

oh I watched the show!

It was fun but also confusing.

i have not interacted with the games or books at all other than the tv-show

I was waiting for Ciri and Geralt to meet, and hangout, and now I have to wait till season two.

I did not like a lot of the costumes. It was not consistence and fell a little flat to me (like compared to game of thrones that is excellent)

Also there was so many characters, there was introduced and then used episodes later, when i have forgotton them which was confusing.

i love Yennefer and how angry and unsatisfied she is.

Overall pretty good!

[PPA]

One thing that's really stuck out for me is how I've seen a lot of people complaining because of the ethnicity of the actors involved (black elves or dryads, for example, or the black guard in Cintra), and especially about the actresses playing Triss and Yennefer, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Mousesack, who looks different than in the books and games, is a mage instead of a druid, and even has a different fate in the show than in the other versions. It's strange given the insistence of most people that these complaints are because they're "not being true to the characters" and kind of give credence to there being some level of racial and sexual discrimination at the heart of the debacle, for all that they argue otherwise. Hell, I've seen people complain that in the Witcher 3 Ciri is bisexual and that just doesn't make sense for the character, when she is canonically bisexual in the book series. Fandoms are weird, I guess is my point. :smallbiggrin:

[Keltest]

One thing that's really stuck out for me is how I've seen a lot of people complaining because of the ethnicity of the actors involved (black elves or dryads, for example, or the black guard in Cintra), and especially about the actresses playing Triss and Yennefer, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Mousesack, who looks different than in the books and games, is a mage instead of a druid, and even has a different fate in the show than in the other versions. It's strange given the insistence of most people that these complaints are because they're "not being true to the characters" and kind of give credence to there being some level of racial and sexual discrimination at the heart of the debacle, for all that they argue otherwise. Hell, I've seen people complain that in the Witcher 3 Ciri is bisexual and that just doesn't make sense for the character, when she is canonically bisexual in the book series. Fandoms are weird, I guess is my point. :smallbiggrin:

Mousesack actually is a druid, and is mentioned as such. The actual technical differences between mages and druids largely come down to the philosophy behind their use of The Power rather than an actual different source of magic.

Also, I was annoyed that they killed him. I really liked him in the games.

[Rynjin]

I think I, at least, have been perfectly honest about my reasons for not liking their choice for Trissiny's actress.

It's because I like redheads.

[Lemmy]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love. Of course they will care more about the portrayal of more important characters than they do about the more minor ones.

Also, it's not necessarily about ethnicity, but about similarity. Mousesack is still pretty visually similar to his game incarnation, despite being a different ethnicity, while Triss is completely different. Yennefer is so so. If the actress of Triss were ethnically black, Asian or whatever, but still somehow looked liked a Polish redhead, no one would be complaining well... Some people would be complaining... There's always someone complaining. But you know what I mean).

This kind of unnecessary change is also annoying because it shows the priority of the show-runners isn't being faithful to the source material, or even making a good story.

Also, yes... Killing Mousesack was indeed a waste.

[Ramza00]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love.

Fans want multiple things, and each individual person wants a different combination of things. Being reductionist and say fans just want is a form of projection.

[Keltest]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love. Of course they will care more about the portrayal of more important characters than they do about the more minor ones.

Also, it's not necessarily about ethnicity, but about similarity. Mousesack is still pretty visually similar to his game incarnation, despite being a different ethnicity, while Triss is completely different. Yennefer is so so. If the actress of Triss were ethnically black, Asian or whatever, but still somehow looked liked a Polish redhead, no one would be complaining well... Some people would be complaining... There's always someone complaining. But you know what I mean).

This kind of unnecessary change is also annoying because it shows the priority of the show-runners isn't being faithful to the source material, or even making a good story.

Also, yes... Killing Mousesack was indeed a waste.

Um... are you aware that you just said its Ok for the actress to be black, as long as she's a white redhead?

[Morty]

It might come as a shock to some, but "Triss Merigold" isn't a Polish name, so she's not even fantasy!Polish. Nor is anyone in the Witcher-verse, which is a pretty generic European fantasy setting at the end of the day.

As far as Mousesack goes, I don't think we ever do find out what happens to him in the book series. He appears in a story taking place after the ending, but it's an explicitly non-canonical one. So neither his fate in the games (where he lives) nor in the show (where he doesn't) technically contradict anything.

[PPA]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love. Of course they will care more about the portrayal of more important characters than they do about the more minor ones.

Also, it's not necessarily about ethnicity, but about similarity. Mousesack is still pretty visually similar to his game incarnation, despite being a different ethnicity, while Triss is completely different. Yennefer is so so. If the actress of Triss were ethnically black, Asian or whatever, but still somehow looked liked a Polish redhead, no one would be complaining well... Some people would be complaining... There's always someone complaining. But you know what I mean).

This kind of unnecessary change is also annoying because it shows the priority of the show-runners isn't being faithful to the source material, or even making a good story.

Also, yes... Killing Mousesack was indeed a waste.

Well, I wholeheartedly disagree with you that gender and race issues in media are dumb by definition like you want to make it seem because that's your opinion. And I also disagree that Mousesack is truer to his game version than Triss, for instance.

I only recently played the third game and it took me several quests interacting with him to realize based on what he said that he was supposed to be the same character that in the books and show is called Mousesack because they used the original Polish name, which I didn't know. That didn't happen with, say, Jaskier, who in the books and game is called Dandelion. Cahir doesn't act like book Cahir in important ways either, and people seldom complain about that.

I just find interesting that most complaints I see and hear are about the female characters, regardless of similar or bigger changes in the same show to male characters.

And yeah, you just said it's fine to cast actors from a different ethnicity as long as they look like another ethnicity, to prove that ethnicity has nothing to do with this. That's a weird argument, to say the least.

[Lemmy]

Fans want multiple things, and each individual person wants a different combination of things. Being reductionist and say fans just want is a form of projection.Every characterization of a large group is reductionist, since we can't describe every single member of the group separately. Still, some descriptions are more accurate than others.


Um... are you aware that you just said its Ok for the actress to be black, as long as she's a white redhead?


And yeah, you just said it's fine to cast actors from a different ethnicity as long as they look like another ethnicity, to prove that ethnicity has nothing to do with this. That's a weird argument, to say the least.
My point, which I'm sure you got, but prefer to oversimplify... Is that it doesn't matter what is the ethnicity of the actor, as long as they look like the character they are portraying. Triss is a "Polish" redhead. So whoever plays her, should look like a Polish redhead, since TV is a visual media. If she were a black woman white hair, then her actress should look like that. If she were an "Asian" bald woman, then her actress should look like that, and so on.

No casting can be 100% accurate, but it sure can be much more accurate than hiring someone who looks completely different from the character. And doing it simply because of her ethnicity and then saying that anyone who has a problem with it is racist is not only dishonest but downright hypocritical.

(I add quotation marks on "Polish" and "Asian", because AFAIK there's no actual Poland or Asia in the Witcher setting).

[Ramza00]

Every characterization of a large group is reductionist, since we can't describe every single member of the group separately. Still, some descriptions are more accurate than others.

It is very full of hubris to say you speak for others, like a lorax saying he speaks for the trees, for other humans have voice yet you say you speak for them with their voice and only your opinions matter / accurately describe reality.

Saying "Fans just want" (your words Lenny) is always projection, and not realizing this is hubris and gatekeeping. It is like saying only true Star Wars fans are X, Y, Z and believe A, B, C.

[Lemmy]

It is very full of hubris to say you speak for others, like a lorax saying he speaks for the trees, for other humans have voice yet you say you speak for them with their voice and only your opinions matter / accurately describe reality.

Saying "Fans just want" (your words Lenny) is always projection, and not realizing this is hubris and gatekeeping. It is like saying only true Star Wars fans are X, Y, Z and believe A, B, C.Everyone describes a group of people at some point in their life. Everyone. And not all descriptions (of anything) are equally accurate. Therefore, some descriptions of groups of people are more accurate than others.

Also, it has nothing to do with hubris or gate-keeping.

The former because while, by definition, I believe my opinions are correct, if I didn't, they wouldn't be my opinions... That doesn't mean I claim to "speak for everyone".

The latter because describing a common opinion or behavior in a group has literally nothing to do with keeping people outside said group. It'd be "gatekeeping" if I told someone that they aren't (or can't be) part of a group if they don't think/behave in a certain way, which I never did.

There's a big difference between saying "X-men fans like Wolverine" and "You aren't/can't be an X-men fan if you don't like Wolverine". The first is a general statement, that while not true of 100% of all members of that group, reflects enough members of the group to justify the statement (at least in the eyes of whoever is stating it). And everyone who isn't being intentionally obtuse understands that's the meaning. The second one states there's a prerequisite to being a member of said group, which can be (and usually is) gatekeeping.

[Ramza00]

Everyone describes a group of people at some point in their life. Everyone. And not all descriptions (of anything) are equally accurate. Therefore, some descriptions of groups of people are more accurate than others.

Also, it has nothing to do with hubris or gate-keeping.

The former because while, by definition, I believe my opinions are correct, if I didn't, they wouldn't be my opinions... That doesn't mean I claim to "speak for everyone".

The latter because describing a common opinion or behavior in a group has literally nothing to do with keeping people outside said group. It'd be "gatekeeping" if I told someone that they aren't (or can't be) part of a group if they don't think/behave in a certain way, which I never did.
There's a big difference between saying "X-men fans like Wolverine" and "You aren't/can't be an X-men fan if you don't like Wolverine".

Sigh language matters with rhetoric for certain types of language deny people from having their unique experience and how their unique experience influences their perceptions of what is acceptable. Well if you don't get this, that indicates something about you for not everyone's experience on this blue marble is the same.

So I repeat "Fans just want" is kinda clueless on your part :smallsigh:

[Lemmy]

Sigh language matters with rhetoric for certain types of language deny people from having their unique experience and how their unique experience influences their perceptions of what is acceptable. Well if you don't get this, that indicates something about you for not everyone's experience on this blue marble is the same.

So I repeat "Fans just want" is kinda clueless on your part :smallsigh:I understand you point. I just think you're being disingenuous or unnecessarily nit-picky.

Should I never ever describe any group of people because no statement will be true of 100% of its members? Even if it's to dispute another claim about said group (like it was the case here). I suppose I could have added the word "Most" in my post, but I figured that was already implied in the sentence, since that's how generalizations work.

e.g.: I don't see anything wrong with saying "Brazilians like soccer". Not all do, of course. But it's accurate of enough members of the group for the generalization to not be inaccurate.

Someone implied that the reason fans disliked the casting was because of racism/sexism. I disagreed and gave what I believe is a far more likely reason for the majority of people who had a problem with the casting.

[Keltest]

Every characterization of a large group is reductionist, since we can't describe every single member of the group separately. Still, some descriptions are more accurate than others.




My point, which I'm sure you got, but prefer to oversimplify... Is that it doesn't matter what is the ethnicity of the actor, as long as they look like the character they are portraying. Triss is a "Polish" redhead. So whoever plays her, should look like a Polish redhead, since TV is a visual media. If she were a black woman white hair, then her actress should look like that. If she were an "Asian" bald woman, then her actress should look like that, and so on.

No casting can be 100% accurate, but it sure can be much more accurate than hiring someone who looks completely different from the character. And doing it simply because of her ethnicity and then saying that anyone who has a problem with it is racist is not only dishonest but downright hypocritical.

(I add quotation marks on "Polish" and "Asian", because AFAIK there's no actual Poland or Asia in the Witcher setting).

I mean, you keep repeating that, but "polish" (and redhead, generally) means pretty exclusively "white". So funny how the only major casting complaint ive seen happens to be about somebody changed to being non-white, especially given the previous outcry about the possibility of other characters possibly being non-white.

[Lemmy]

I mean, you keep repeating that, but "polish" (and redhead, generally) means pretty exclusively "white". So funny how the only major casting complaint ive seen happens to be about somebody changed to being non-white, especially given the previous outcry about the possibility of other characters possibly being non-white.Is there any black character being portrayed by someone who is from a completely different ethnicity and looks nothing like the character? If so, I'll complain about that too.

[PPA]

I understand you point. I just think you're being disingenuous or unnecessarily nit-picky.

Should I never ever describe any group of people because no statement will be true of 100% of its members? Even if it's to dispute another claim about said group (like it was the case here).

Someone implied that the reason fans disliked the casting was because of racism/sexism. I disagreed and gave what I believe is a far more likely reason for the majority of people who had a problem with the casting.

1- I said "most people" not "all fans."
2- You said discussing gender and racial issues in this context is dumb and has always been dumb.
3- Then you awarded yourself the role of of Witcher Fandom spokesperson to impose your opinion.
4- You told me that I should have understood a different point than the one you literally made and claimed I was simplifying matters in order to pretend I missed your point.
5- You still haven't addressed how Mousesack and Cahir's differences from the books and games are okay but Triss and Yen's aren't. Saying "Mousesack is the same but the sorceresses aren't" doesn't make it true.
6- Calling someone dumb, even if by implication, and attempting to impose your views on them just because you don't like the observation they made, or it makes you uncomfortable, or you find it boring, seldom leads to friendly discussion.
7- Being Schrödinger's Troll and deciding if what you said was retroactively a different point depending on what someone replies to you is childish.
8- Would I like the cast to look as close as possible to the way Sapkowski described the characters in his books? Sure I would. I just disagree about having selective outrage about the differences depending on who the character or actor is.
9- I don't care about convincing you or making you agree with me. You're literally some stick figure in an internet forum, and I don't care how invested you are in proving that SJW ruin everything and discrimination doesn't exist. I made an observation I thought was interesting and amusing, and I'm willing to change my mind if someone argues otherwise with actual points, not logical fallacies. If you think gender and race issues are made up and don't come into play in these things, well, that's fine. Enjoy your weekend! I'm not going to reply to your posts any more.

[Lemmy]

1- I said "most people" not "all fans."
So generalizing humanity isntead of a andom is OK?

2- You said discussing gender and racial issues in this context is dumb and has always been dumb.
No. I said implying that a fandom is racist or sexist because they don't like a casting choice is dumb.

3- Then you awarded yourself the role of of Witcher Fandom spokesperson to impose your opinion.
No, I didn't. I shared what I consider to be a much more likely explanation for why people dislike those casting choices.

4- You told me that I should have understood a different point than the one you literally made and claimed I was simplifying matters in order to pretend I missed your point.Because IMO, you did.

5- You still haven't addressed how Mousesack and Cahir's differences from the books and games are okay but Triss and Yen's aren't. Saying "Mousesack is the same but the sorceresses aren't" doesn't make it true. Didn't say "the same", I said physically similar, as in, their appearance. IMHO, Mousesack is physically more simialr to its book/game counterpart than Triss.

6- Calling someone dumb, even if by implication, and attempting to impose your views on them just because you don't like the observation they made, or it makes you uncomfortable, or you find it boring, seldom leads to friendly discussion.
Saying something is dumb doesn't mean whoever does it is a dumb person. We all do dumb things, probably quite often. Doesn't mean everyone is dumb.

7- Being Schrödinger's Troll and deciding if what you said was retroactively a different point depending on what someone replies to you is childish.
I didn't do that either.

8- Would I like the cast to look as close as possible to the way Sapkowski described the characters in his books? Sure I would. I just disagree about having selective outrage about the differences depending on who the character or actor is.
My outrage isn't selective. If there's any black person being portrayed by a white person who looks nothing like the character they're portraying, let me know. That's equally terrible casting choice, IMO.

9- I don't care about convincing you or making you agree with me. You're literally some stick figure in an internet forum, and I don't care how invested you are in proving that SJW ruin everything and discrimination doesn't exist.I didn't say either of those things.


I made an observation I thought was interesting and amusing, and I'm willing to change my mind if someone argues otherwise with actual points, not logical fallacies.I don't think I used any fallacies there.


If you think gender and race issues are made up and don't come into play in these things, well, that's fine.I didn't say that either.

[Xyril]

So generalizing humanity isntead of a andom is OK?


You seem to be fixating on the important difference being the "humanity" versus "fandom" part, when it seems like another important distinction is claiming "most" versus "all."



My outrage isn't selective. If there's any black person being portrayed by a white person who looks nothing like the character they're portraying, let me know. That's equally terrible casting choice, IMO.


That's very cool of you. And to be as nitpicky as you, I don't see anyone here arguing that all people who have a problem with this sort of casting decision is motivated by prejudice.

However, it's also either a bit disingenuous or a bit ignorant to dismiss out of hand the assertion that this might be a problem that exists at a troubling scale among a fandom or among people in general. Take for example Jack Reacher--I was part of a very vocal group of fans who didn't like the fact that Reacher was played by Tom Cruise. In the books, he's about a half a foot taller than Cruise. This isn't only cosmetic--in many subtle and not so subtle ways, the way people respond to his imposing stature and the way he's chosen to use it have a real impact on the character.

Yet if you look at the general Reacher fandom, I'd say the majority didn't care too much--or at least, not enough to severely hamper their enjoyment of the movies. More tellingly, you compare this to casting adaptations that crossed gender or ethnic lines, and more often than not the amount of outrage--and the amount of popular support for the outraged position--is much stronger.

Heck, look at the Star Wars threads here even, where there weren't even any original characters to be replaced in the adaptation, and you see folks complaining about all of the minorities and females who "replaced" some theoretically better suited character and how this was the original sin that broke all the movies. (Okay, I can sort of buy the argument for Finn, since a non-zero chunk of the fandom is knowledgeable enough to remember that the first stormtroopers were clone troopers, and stupid enough not to remember that they ran out of clones and replaced them with conscripts by the original trilogy.)

As for your position, I can totally understand why you feel unfairly attacked when people criticize others who share your opinion but arrived at that position in a much more questionable way. That said, when folks are specifically criticizing the guys who obviously have a questionable motivation for their arguments--the guys who, unlikely you, conspicuously ignore or even praise casting decisions when it's one specific group that does the replacing, and absolutely never speaks out when an actor is the same gender and race as the original character, but looks different in every other way--then going out of your way to defend those guys might needlessly paint a target on your back.

Personally, I'm very happy just to have a video game adaptation that doesn't suck and stays pretty true to the original work.

[Dragonus45]

It doesn't help this discussion that the actress playing Trish was the clear weak link of the cast acting wise.

[Lemmy]

My problem is when racism/sexism/whatever is is presented as the rule, rather than the exception behind a criticism. And when whole fandoms are labeled as prejudiced bigots simply because they criticize an aspect of a show/movie/whatever, specially when there are obviously far more likely reasons for said criticism.

It's even worse when the people doing the labeling use strawmen and lies about the arguments and motives of the people they are accusing... In this very page there is a post directed at me, that not only twists and strawmans, but also straight up lies about what I said and did.

When someone implies a group is full of horrible people with horrible motives, it should be no surprise when members of that group will speak up to defend themselves.

[Keltest]

My problem is when racism/sexism/whatever is is presented as the rule, rather than the exception behind a criticism. And when whole fandoms are labeled as prejudiced bigots simply because they criticize an aspect of a show/movie/whatever, specially when there are obviously far more likely reasons for said criticism.

It's even worse when the people doing the labeling use strawmen and lies about the arguments and motives of the people they are accusing... In this very page there is a post directed at me, that not only twists and strawmans, but also straight up lies about what I said and did.

When someone implies a group is full of horrible people with horrible motives, it should be no surprise when members of that group will speak up to defend themselves.

I doubt you were being intentionally malicious with your comments, but the implications of your statement are there. Multiple people saw them and pointed it out. Its one thing to say that Triss should have had a different actress because the games have created a very strong idea of what she looks like to most people, but when you say that a person of one race should never be allowed to play a character that was another race in the source material... well, that's not good.

[Rodin]

Apparently the first book The Last Wish has gotten a reprint due to the popularity of the Netflix series. I saw it in my local bookshop and I picked it up to read while I was waiting for an appointment.

The book makes me appreciate the Netflix series even more, as well as Henry Cavill's acting. The mixed timelines suddenly make perfect sense. Yeneffer doesn't appear apart from in a single story, but she's referenced numerous times. They wanted to establish Yennefer as well as give the actress more material, so we get her backstory. In addition, the first book really is just a collection of tales. There's no glue holding it together apart from a framing device of Geralt telling stories and reminiscing while he recuperates. Instead, they added the stuff with Siri to build tension and get some of the heavy world-building work out of the way. The story that's in the book but not the show (the take on Beauty and the Beast) had me picturing Henry Cavill throughout. He did a really great job of becoming the book character.

I don't know how else you would adapt it. After Game of Thrones people expect a deep narrative from the very beginning. A purely episodic format would have killed the show before it got off the ground.

Now I have to decide if I want to get the next book, or if I want to wait and watch the show. I guess it depends how long I remain in lockdown - catching up on reading suddenly has a much greater appeal.

[Xyril]

My problem is when racism/sexism/whatever is is presented as the rule, rather than the exception behind a criticism. And when whole fandoms are labeled as prejudiced bigots simply because they criticize an aspect of a show/movie/whatever, specially when there are obviously far more likely reasons for said criticism.

It's not so "obviously far more likely reasons" when those reasons conspicuously exist in another aspect of the work, yet that aspect attracts orders of magnitude less criticism from the same fandom.



It's even worse when the people doing the labeling use strawmen and lies about the arguments and motives of the people they are accusing... In this very page there is a post directed at me, that not only twists and strawmans, but also straight up lies about what I said and did.


Respectfully, if you're going to be accusing people of using strawmen, you should probably say specifically what you mean. Sometimes people legitimately misunderstand or misinterpret something--and sometimes people legitimately mean one thing and are just careless in how they word it.

As Keltest pointed out, multiple people took issue with how you phrased or worded something--after your impassioned argument that people don't deserve to have their motives questioned, are you now immediately turning around and questioning all of their motives?

Also, there can be a fine line between a strawman argument and a poorly phrased argument ad absurdum:



Should I never ever describe any group of people because no statement will be true of 100% of its members?


When someone implies a group is full of horrible people with horrible motives, it should be no surprise when members of that group will speak up to defend themselves.

It's no surprise, sure. However, the manner in which that member defends himself is itself subject to scrutiny and, if appropriate, criticism.

[Clertar]

Now I have to decide if I want to get the next book, or if I want to wait and watch the show. I guess it depends how long I remain in lockdown - catching up on reading suddenly has a much greater appeal.

The second book, The Sword of Destiny, is also a collection of stories, and it was adapted already in season 1. IMHO it's significantly better than book one.

As you saw in the first book, Ciri doesn't make an appearence there. In the second book we get the start of the war with Nilfgaard and Geralt's first meeting(s) with Ciri, which work out slightly differently in the book than in the Netflix adaptation.

Book 3, The Blood of Elves, is the first novel in the series, and the one being adapted for season 2.

[BisectedBrioche]

Every characterization of a large group is reductionist, since we can't describe every single member of the group separately. Still, some descriptions are more accurate than others.




My point, which I'm sure you got, but prefer to oversimplify... Is that it doesn't matter what is the ethnicity of the actor, as long as they look like the character they are portraying. Triss is a "Polish" redhead. So whoever plays her, should look like a Polish redhead, since TV is a visual media. If she were a black woman white hair, then her actress should look like that. If she were an "Asian" bald woman, then her actress should look like that, and so on.

No casting can be 100% accurate, but it sure can be much more accurate than hiring someone who looks completely different from the character. And doing it simply because of her ethnicity and then saying that anyone who has a problem with it is racist is not only dishonest but downright hypocritical.

(I add quotation marks on "Polish" and "Asian", because AFAIK there's no actual Poland or Asia in the Witcher setting).

I wouldn't agree at all there. An adaptation is, after all, an adaptation. If you want the original, it's there anyway.

There's no reason that a character who's white (or has the appearance thereof) in a book can't be played by an actor of colour. Either because the actor's a good fit, or because the original work could use more representation.

There's no reason a straight, cisgender character can't be made LGBTQ+ because it adds an interesting element to their story (the superhero genre does it all the time).

Nor is there any reason you can't, say, make a green alien have human skin tone most of the time (because SFX are expensive), or have a helmeted character go without because you're paying 6 digits for an A list actor's face.

Adaptations adapt.

[Eldan]

Oh, I don't know, I think Judge Dread worked quite well, despite only showing Karl Urban's chin.

[Rydiro]

There's no reason a straight, cisgender character can't be made LGBTQ+ because it adds an interesting element to their story (the superhero genre does it all the time).You mean LGBTQ+ people are inherently more interesting than straight cis people?

[Clertar]

You mean LGBTQ+ people are inherently more interesting than straight cis people?

Come on, look at David Bowie and say that's not true :smallwink:

[gomipile]

I liked the actress and performance of Triss well enough. What little there was, anyway.

However, it is another example in a long list of possible ginger erasure in live action media. Let alone of the fact that actual ginger actresses are uncommon as it is. Getting a ginger character occasionally is nice, but if that character is female, she's usually not even played by a ginger actress.

That being said, I said "possible" above because Triss is only a brightly colored redhead in the games. In the books her hair is described as "chestnut." I typically associate that with a deep brown. Possibly a bit of a reddish brown, but not bright red hair like it was in the games.

[Lemmy]

I doubt you were being intentionally malicious with your comments, but the implications of your statement are there. Multiple people saw them and pointed it out. Its one thing to say that Triss should have had a different actress because the games have created a very strong idea of what she looks like to most people, but when you say that a person of one race should never be allowed to play a character that was another race in the source material... well, that's not good. I literally said I don't care what's their ethinicity, as long as they look the part
Picking an actor that is completely different from the original is a bad casting choice. Doing it just because of their ethinicity and then calling critics "racist" is downright hypocritical.


It's not so "obviously far more likely reasons" when those reasons conspicuously exist in another aspect of the work, yet that aspect attracts orders of magnitude less criticism from the same fandom.Not all changes are the same. People caring more about changes to the more important/popular characters is completely understandable.


Respectfully, if you're going to be accusing people of using strawmen, you should probably say specifically what you mean.Read PPA's last reply to me. The one I quoted. If those aren't strawmen and downright lies about what I said, I don't know what to call them... Unless you honestly think I was "trying to prove that racism and sexism don't exist".

I don't like the idea of changing a character just for the sake of changing a character. Specially the more iconic characters. Or that every production should include every kind of human being in existence in their main cast.

And again, obviously fans of the franchise will generally be much more bothered by changes to some characters than to others. It depends.on how much that character is ingrained in their minds and how feasible it is to keep them accurate (e.g.: I wouldn't mind a Dresden Files adaptation where he is "only" 6'4" because I know it's difficult to find actors much above that).

At very least, the more iconic character should stay as close to the original as possible, unless there's a really good reason to do otherwise... And actor's ethinicity isn't one, IMHO.

Besides, this is yet another stance of redheads being "race-lifted". They are a minority too. Why is it OK to erase them?

EDIT:


That being said, I said "possible" above because Triss is only a brightly colored redhead in the games. In the books her hair is described as "chestnut." I typically associate that with a deep brown. Possibly a bit of a reddish brown, but not bright red hair like it was in the games.
I don't consider myself a super-fan of The Witcher. I heard of the franchise first from the games, and only recently started reading the books. In one of them, she's described as having "chestnut-red hair" and "[something-I-don't-remember]-blue eyes".

In any case, redheads in media tend to have brighter/"redder" hair than IRL, simply because bright colors are easier to do and look better on paper (or computer screen, as it may be).

Also, it's very often one of the most unique and iconic traits of the character's appearance, usually precisely because of its brightness and rarity.

[Xyril]

Not all changes are the same. People caring more about changes to the more important/popular characters is completely understandable.


That's completely fair. Confounding variables and all. That's why I try not to rush to judgment when it comes to individual people and their motivations.

That said, you should also consider your own advice when you rush to defend folks who aren't yourself personally. It's commendable that out of several valid reasons for making certain criticisms and not others, you assume that people are motivated by less reprehensible reasons. However, when the empirical facts support multiple interpretations, and you assert that (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument) that it's wrong to first presume that prejudice is the primary motivation, then isn't it also wrong to first presume that prejudice isn't the primary motivation as well?

Like I said, it's commendation that you prefer to see the best in people and to presume almost axiomatically that their motivations are reasonable--however, the way criticism of certain movies have shaped up have demonstrated that this isn't true for a non-negligible chunk of fandom. I mean personally I think that automatically assume the best of a stranger is a better outlook than assuming the worst of them, but if assuming the best motives involves automatically rushing to their defense and attacking the motives of their critics, then maybe that's taking this outlook a bit too far.



Read PPA's last reply to me. The one I quoted. If those aren't strawmen and downright lies about what I said, I don't know what to call them... Unless you honestly think I was "trying to prove that racism and sexism don't exist".


Honestly, both of you are so reckless on the whole use of nuanced language, and you both seem to believe that when the other guy forgets to put a "some/most/all" somewhere you should automatically fill in whatever one makes the other guy's position seem least reasonable, that I call a lot of that a wash. Depending on how high I crank my latitude threshold, you're generally both using strawman arguments or neither of you are.



I don't like the idea of changing a character just for the sake of changing a character. Specially the more iconic characters. Or that every production should include every kind of human being in existence in their main cast.





And again, obviously fans of the franchise will generally be much more bothered by changes to some characters than to others. It depends.on how much that character is ingrained in their minds and how feasible it is to keep them accurate (e.g.: I wouldn't mind a Dresden Files adaptation where he is "only" 6'4" because I know it's difficult to find actors much above that).

At very least, the more iconic character should stay as close to the original as possible, unless there's a really good reason to do otherwise... And actor's ethinicity isn't one, IMHO.


Yeah, but we're not all talking about changing ethnicity for the sake of tokenism or affirmative action. You are primarily focusing on that particular motivation, perhaps because it's the easiest one to assail.

The thing is, we're hitting the point where there are enough non-white, talented actors that you can't really ignore them. Moreover, particularly for iconic, adapted characters, there is usually someone--maybe the author of the original source, maybe the producer or screenwriter pushing the adaptation--who has an idea of what the essence of a character is, and often has a strong sense of what sort of actor they want for the role.

Famously, when J.K. Rowling saw Evanna Lynch, she immediately thought she was the perfect Luna Lovegood--not only for her looks, but also for her presence and mannerisms, as well as her demonstrated understanding of the character. Now, if we had a choice of several actresses, all of whom had the same acting ability, the same knowledge of and suitability for the character, but radically different looks, then I would absolutely pick the pale blonde over the black girl or the ginger.

However, despite the "common sense" knowledge that the supply of hungry actors far outstrips demand, in practice the casting directors rarely get such a perfect array of choices. Sometimes you find the perfect actor, but more often than not you often have to decide which aspects of the character you find the most important and make trade offs. Also factor in things like "bankability" of the actor, which is probably why had Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher, instead of picking a 6 foot 4 white male actor--a commodity that actually isn't nearly as rare as you seem to think.

(Hell, John Krasinski is 6'3", probably far cheaper than Cruise at the time of his first Reacher movie, and a damn good action star, and it literally took me a few seconds to think of him based on stuff I've watched lately.)

So going back to the Harry Potter example, it was a particularly popular book series, so the number of super-fans was probably orders of magnitude higher than for your typical adapted series, meaning that the number of super-fans who happened to be particularly interested in Luna, who also happened to be talented enough actresses, who ended up in the casting process was disproportionately, so maybe they actually had the option to be very picky, or maybe they just got lucky and found someone who was perfect the role. Most productions don't have such an abundance of options.

So what happens if you have your perfect Luna, but you only have the one perfect Luna, and something about her looks doesn't match up? I would argue that you cast the perfect Luna, and if she happens to be Asian or something, then you're not casting her "because of ethnicity" as you say, but because she's the best choice for the character in spite of ethnicity.

And that's what I find troubling when it comes to the criticisms I see. When such a casting choice is made, and the actor is horrible for the role, then you see a ton of vocal people argue (apparently sincerely) that there must have been some directive to pick a minority actor for the role, replacing some looks-appropriate, talented white actor who was eager to play the same role for the same offered compensation. And when the actor is perfect for the role in all aspects except looks (at least, the ethnicity aspect of looks), then the vocal criticism is that there was a white actor who was passed over who was better suited in terms of looks and at least equally suited in terms of all of those intangibles.

These folks stick to their outrage despite the fact that they're predicated on layers of assumptions that don't always seem reasonable. I mean, Sony was a huge studio doing a heavily-funded franchise with a director who had a solid understanding of the source material and the genre in general, and yet they still couldn't find a better Venom than Topher Grace. How is it that so many folks seem to assume that even the smallest TV production has the option of picking dozens of nearly-perfect actors, but are picking terrible ones because of reverse-racism?

[BisectedBrioche]

You mean LGBTQ+ people are inherently more interesting than straight cis people?

That is both absolutely, obviously not what I meant, and absolutely obviously true. :smalltongue:


Oh, I don't know, I think Judge Dread worked quite well, despite only showing Karl Urban's chin.

I very much agree there, but that was also a case of a character who was known for never removing their helmet (rather than simply wearing one).

I'm actually against decisions that are based on showing off an adaptation's star power, but I can still see how it might be pragmatic.

[Xyril]

That is both absolutely, obviously not what I meant, and absolutely obviously true. :smalltongue:


In all seriousness, there is a grain of truth to that. It's often easier to mine drama from people in more uncommon situations, and we are still at a point where being LGBT means that you plausibly expect everyone else to react to you (or your character) differently.

It's the same reason why, potentially problematic tropes aside, the story of the white guy in Japan might have more obvious "hooks" than the story of a generic native Japanese guy. On top of all the drama and conflicts you could imagine from living in Japan, or just generally being a human being, there are things like dealing with prejudice from others or your own cultural misunderstandings that can contribute to your story and illuminate more aspects of your character.

[BisectedBrioche]

In all seriousness, there is a grain of truth to that. It's often easier to mine drama from people in more uncommon situations, and we are still at a point where being LGBT means that you plausibly expect everyone else to react to you (or your character) differently.

Strictly speaking, this was basically what I meant. A lack of proper representation means that there's a massive amount of potential for stories being missed. And not just simple "I'm different to everyone" stories.

There's just a lot of life experiences unique to trans and non-straight people (and non straight trans people), even in settings where they're completely accepted (as this GDC presentation points out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdxSG2Ak2Zw)).

The simple fact that cis and het people are inherently boring is just incidental. :smallamused:

[Zombimode]

So, I finally get to watching this show.

I have to say that I find myself forcing me to sit through.

Part of the reason is that I'm simply not much of a Netflix (amazon/whatever) guy. Its competing with gaming and for me gaming almost always wins.

But the other part is that watching the Witcher show is like experiencing The Witcher by means of a student project: it looks familiar, but it feels like a bland 2nd take that pales in comparison to the "original". Since I know Witcher only through the games, the "original" in my case are the games. And they are just so much better: much better music, higher production values (at least Witcher 3), more time to develop characters and character interactions. And yes, I like the games portrayal of the characters better (Geralt is WAY to young in the show...)

I get that the creative lead of the show wanted to do their own thing but if that (https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aE2bLpM_460s.jpg) is the result, I'm not sure if the effort of reiventing the wheel was worth it.

[Rynjin]

(Geralt is WAY to young in the show...)

Man, it's almost like the start of this takes place like 50 years before the first Witcher game even begins.

[Zombimode]

Man, it's almost like the start of this takes place like 50 years before the first Witcher game even begins.

50 years before the first Witcher game? Then you can tell me who this "Dandelion" guy in the show is. Since he can't be the Dandelion of the games.

[Eldan]

Dandelion is supposed to be over 40 in the games. And a good part of the TV show takes place decades before geralt and Dandelion meet.

[Rynjin]

Dandelion is supposed to be over 40 in the games. And a good part of the TV show takes place decades before geralt and Dandelion meet.

^This. About 10-20 years seemingly pass between the first and second episodes.

Always remember that the games are SEQUELS to the books, not retellings.

[Rodin]

Also, the show isn't trying to be like the games. It's trying to be like the first book, which was written some 15 years prior to the first game. Having just read the first book, the tone matches exactly. The creative lead isn't doing their own thing, they're literally following the plot from the books. The only difference is that they're weaving in some stories from later books that Geralt wasn't present for to even out the story and make it so the show isn't without its title character for an entire season further down the road.

[GloatingSwine]

50 years before the first Witcher game? Then you can tell me who this "Dandelion" guy in the show is. Since he can't be the Dandelion of the games.

Each story is presented linearly, but they're not taking place at the same times.

(That said, I regard the games the same as you seem to the TV show. They're just not the books.)

[Chen]

Dandelion is born in 1229. The battle at the end if season 1 is 1263. Witcher 1 starts in 1270, Witcher 2 in 1271, Witcher 3 in 1272 and the last expansion of Witcher 3 in 1275. So Dandelion’s age works fine in both the games and show.

[McStabbington]

Plus, since they're not using the Julian calendar, there's the strong possibility that they're using the lunar cycle, which has 48 weeks to the year. 4 x 46 = 194 / 52 = 3.73 years disparity between the two "yearly" calculations. Dandelion would actually be about 42 or 43, rather than 46 by our standards, assuming that to be the case.

[Clertar]

Then you can tell me who this "Dandelion" guy in the show is. Since he can't be the Dandelion of the games.

Jaskier in the show keeps the Polish name of the character. Dandelion was an adaptation from the English translation of the games (maybe later the books too, I haven't read them in English), instead of going with "buttercup" which would be the literal translation.
Personally I prefer Jaskier, it keeps the tone of the characters in the universe not having trivial English language names.

[Rodin]

Jaskier in the show keeps the Polish name of the character. Dandelion was an adaptation from the English translation of the games (maybe later the books too, I haven't read them in English), instead of going with "buttercup" which would be the literal translation.
Personally I prefer Jaskier, it keeps the tone of the characters in the universe not having trivial English language names.

The English version of the book that I have uses Dandelion. It is a version that was released after the Netflix series though, so I'm not sure what earlier versions did.

I think Dandelion is fine. It's not a common English name. It isn't a super silly name, any more than Lily or Sakura. It is a somewhat feminine name, but then again so is buttercup. Both are tenacious weeds with pretty flowers, which is a perfect description of the character.

The character who's name is probably closest to a common English name is Yennefer which is just a variation of Jennifer...or rather, Jennifer is a variation of Yennefer/Yennefir which itself is a corruption of Guinevere.

[Sam113097]

Dandelion is supposed to be over 40 in the games. And a good part of the TV show takes place decades before Geralt and Dandelion meet.

I agree, I don't think there's a problem with his appearance in the show. Personally, I had no problem with Jaskier's apparent lack of aging over the course of the show, as he is described as looking quite young for his age in the novels, and I really liked Joey Batey's performance.

[Dragonus45]

50 years before the first Witcher game? Then you can tell me who this "Dandelion" guy in the show is. Since he can't be the Dandelion of the games.

Even non magical people live much much longer in the Witcher universe then in ours.