The Witcher | Official Teaser | Netflix

polonyc2 said:
you're never going to get a direct page for page book adaptation for a lot of these epic sci-fi and fantasy books- Foundation on Apple TV+ is very different from the books but keeps the core story intact, Game of Thrones, The Witcher, The Expanse etc...TV and books are very different...what works well in the books doesn't translate well to TV
Click to expand...
Okay? Still makes it a dumb series.

*Edit* More time now, can expand on this. The excuse of "doesn't translate well" is such a cop out to completely rewriting character personalities, motivations, sequence of events, major event outcomes, etc.

The Harry Potter movies get criticized for cutting stuff out and not explaining certain things. They don't straight up rewrite characters to make up fake drama.

It's not "doesn't translate". It's lazy writers and lazy viewers who don't want to think too hard. Henry realized what this series was really about and dipped out. It's a bad, lazy series made by people who really don't care about the material.
 
Last edited:
The Witcher producer blames Americans and impatient young people for the Netflix show's simplified plot

"When a series is made for a huge mass of viewers, with different experiences, from different parts of the world, and a large part of them are Americans, these simplifications not only make sense, they are necessary," Baginski said...In a separate interview he also pointed the finger at the kids, saying that growing up with YouTube and TikTok has left them without the patience for "longer content [and] long and complicated chains of cause and effect"...

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher...people-for-the-netflix-shows-simplified-plot/
 
polonyc2 said:
The Witcher producer blames Americans and impatient young people for the Netflix show's simplified plot

"When a series is made for a huge mass of viewers, with different experiences, from different parts of the world, and a large part of them are Americans, these simplifications not only make sense, they are necessary," Baginski said...In a separate interview he also pointed the finger at the kids, saying that growing up with YouTube and TikTok has left them without the patience for "longer content [and] long and complicated chains of cause and effect"...

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher...people-for-the-netflix-shows-simplified-plot/
Click to expand...
Lol. Sounds like a bunch of cope.
 
There is simplified / streamlined, and there is ruination.

There are a lot of examples of successful adaptations. Yes, things change. But you keep the tone, the spirit, the characters as lovers of the books expect. I don't think The Witcher ala netflix does a good job of this at all.
 
OutOfPhase said:
There is simplified / streamlined, and there is ruination.

There are a lot of examples of successful adaptations. Yes, things change. But you keep the tone, the spirit, the characters as lovers of the books expect. I don't think The Witcher ala netflix does a good job of this at all.
Click to expand...
Problem is large majority watch the show not because of books or game. That is the real issue. Like me, I am not a big book reader or game player anymore and plenty of people in my family that watch are the same. Almost like 9 out of 10 people. So they don’t really care about it much. Not saying they should change it so much but usually they are fine if it’s done well and good characters acting since large majority are likely the ones that never read the book or played the game.
 
NKD said:
Problem is large majority watch the show not because of books or game. That is the real issue. Like me, I am not a big book reader or game player anymore and plenty of people in my family that watch are the same. Almost like 9 out of 10 people. So they don’t really care about it much. Not saying they should change it so much but usually they are fine if it’s done well and good characters acting since large majority are likely the ones that never read the book or played the game.
Click to expand...
But I really don't think they did a good job here. I watch it with my household, and I'm the only one who has read the books.
They are always confused who is who, and why people are doing things. And S1's time jumping didn't help.
 
I thought it was okay, but that was season 1. It definitely has the "Netflix Touch".

After that I heard people say for God's sake, just try the books. By the literal 1st page you could already ask "who the hell is that version of Geralt in the show?"

Then we watched season 2 and it was just a trainwreck. S3 does not deserve even a curiosity watch.

*Edit* okay, maybe 2nd page. His 1st conversation he has with a person.
 
the books don't seem as popular as the games...even the games didn't really get super popular until Witcher 3...this was always a niche fantasy series...so most people watching the Netflix series have no expectations concerning the books or games and are judging the series on its own merits
 
polonyc2 said:
the books don't seem as popular as the games...even the games didn't really get super popular until Witcher 3...this was always a niche fantasy series...so most people watching the Netflix series have no expectations concerning the books or games and are judging the series on its own merits
Click to expand...
And apparently it's bad just as that lol.

Anybody who actually cares about the material should give at least 1 book a shot. Not doing so is a massive disservice and really makes it clear what sort of situation Henry got into.

I only did because of the show being bad. You can just tell it's slathered in TV melodrama.
 
the annoying part about this one was it was good enough at times and at some aspects (Henry acting) to give you hope....... then ended up as another trash netflix series. at this point the Polish Witcher series is far superior despite not following the books at all.
 
OutOfPhase said:
But I really don't think they did a good job here. I watch it with my household, and I'm the only one who has read the books.
They are always confused who is who, and why people are doing things. And S1's time jumping didn't help.
Click to expand...

That is true, and I even played Witcher 2/3. It does a poor job of explaining what is what and when the time jumps happen. I would likely have missed it completely had I not read the backstory and played the games. Casting characters to different ethnic groups really confused me as well as I expected them to look at least somewhat similar to the games and well, Europe.

But it is more than just that. The various areas are all mixed and mashed together. If they were going to make fantasy medieval Europe, well, not look like medieval Europe then they could have kept the various ethnic groups to different kingdoms or areas. There is a lack of geographic explanation of what each area looks like. For example is Nilfgaard forested? Heavily snowy and cold? Or is it warmer than the northern kingdoms? This makes it a bit hard to get an understanding and remember what place is what between seasons. I don't recall them showing a map in the show once.

All of this sloppily thrown together world building or lack of makes it a bit confusing to figure out what is what and where it is all relative to each other.

The Critical Drinker does a good job explaining this:



Then there are more obvious things that don't feel right, the Geralt never speaking more than maybe 7 words at once. He probably has 10% of of the dialogue in a given episode.

Copy/pasted this from someone else, but this high lights the playable areas in Witcher 3. Does a good job of showing where the various things are in relation to each other.

mE14bqe.jpeg
 
Flogger23m said:
That is true, and I even played Witcher 2/3. It does a poor job of explaining what is what and when the time jumps happen. I would likely have missed it completely had I not read the backstory and played the games. Casting characters to different ethnic groups really confused me as well as I expected them to look at least somewhat similar to the games and well, Europe.

But it is more than just that. The various areas are all mixed and mashed together. If they were going to make fantasy medieval Europe, well, not look like medieval Europe then they could have kept the various ethnic groups to different kingdoms or areas. There is a lack of geographic explanation of what each area looks like. For example is Nilfgaard forested? Heavily snowy and cold? Or is it warmer than the northern kingdoms? This makes it a bit hard to get an understanding and remember what place is what between seasons. I don't recall them showing a map in the show once.

All of this sloppily thrown together world building or lack of makes it a bit confusing to figure out what is what and where it is all relative to each other.

The Critical Drinker does a good job explaining this:



Then there are more obvious things that don't feel right, the Geralt never speaking more than maybe 7 words at once. He probably has 10% of of the dialogue in a given episode.

Copy/pasted this from someone else, but this high lights the playable areas in Witcher 3. Does a good job of showing where the various things are in relation to each other.

View attachment 587690
Click to expand...

All good points. IDK why it annoys people when they pick different ethnic backgrounds. It is a fantasy series. The last thing I worry about in a series as long as its good acting.
 
NKD said:
All good points. IDK why it annoys people when they pick different ethnic backgrounds. It is a fantasy series. The last thing I worry about in a series as long as its good acting.
Click to expand...

It has to do with the setting. If it is set in fantasy medieval Europe, I still expect things like people, languages, clothing, weapons and architecture to look European. For example there are fantasy games set in historic Japan, but the characters are almost always ethnically Japanese, the structures look like what you would have found in Japan, the clothing, weapons and all that.

If they are going to make it super "diverse" then they should have made the different ethnic groups belong to different kingdoms to help differentiate them and give something to identify the differences between the various places.
 
Flogger23m said:
It has to do with the setting. If it is set in fantasy medieval Europe, I still expect things like people, languages, clothing, weapons and architecture to look European. For example there are fantasy games set in historic Japan, but the characters are almost always ethnically Japanese, the structures look like what you would have found in Japan, the clothing, weapons and all that.

If they are going to make it super "diverse" then they should have made the different ethnic groups belong to different kingdoms to help differentiate them and give something to identify the differences between the various places.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there were no other ethnicity in Europe back in the day and they are all white? People were migrating and exploring long before we all realized lmao.
 
Flogger23m said:
It has to do with the setting. If it is set in fantasy medieval Europe, I still expect things like people, languages, clothing, weapons and architecture to look European. For example there are fantasy games set in historic Japan, but the characters are almost always ethnically Japanese, the structures look like what you would have found in Japan, the clothing, weapons and all that.

If they are going to make it super "diverse" then they should have made the different ethnic groups belong to different kingdoms to help differentiate them and give something to identify the differences between the various places.
Click to expand...
It's set in a fantasy world that may have been created by a Polish person, but it's not tied to the European landscape in the way something explicitly set in historic Japan might be. And I'd maintain that we shouldn't get upset about "accuracy" with fantasy universes in general; they may be allegories for real life, but they're not chained to real life.

As it stands, diversity is not why The Witcher is flailing about; it's the inadequate storytelling. Strong writing and top-notch acting are compelling no matter what the cast looks like.
 
Aurelius said:
It's set in a fantasy world that may have been created by a Polish person, but it's not tied to the European landscape in the way something explicitly set in historic Japan might be. And I'd maintain that we shouldn't get upset about "accuracy" with fantasy universes in general; they may be allegories for real life, but they're not chained to real life.

As it stands, diversity is not why The Witcher is flailing about; it's the inadequate storytelling. Strong writing and top-notch acting are compelling no matter what the cast looks like.
Click to expand...
He doesn't appear to be arguing there is a problem with diversity. He is arguing that there is no world-building integrated with it, which further degrades the show on top of the far bigger problem you already mentioned: bad core storytelling.
 
This is a show I really wanted to like, but unfortunately, I really can’t find a reason to. I watched season 1 and had a really difficult time following the story. The time shifting didn’t help. I tried episode 1 of season 2 but I wasn’t compelled enough to continue. Season 3 currently has a 22% fan score on Rotten Tomatoes, so either it’s really bad or fans are review bombing it knowing Cavill’s gone. Not sure.

I think a more interesting format would have been something closer to a “monster of the week” kind of deal a la Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Witchers are contract monster hunters, but I wasn’t ever really seeing him doing that.

Lastly, to lose the interest of an actor with a genuine interest in the source material is a testament to how badly Netflix missed the mark. All in all, a wasted opportunity by Netflix.
 
Netflix's formula is well known. Take a story from popular culture. Disregard the built in audience, the people who made it popular, and apply the "algorithm" for their "typical subscriber" - suburban, female liberal.

Blame the audience when they don't flock to and lavish praise upon their unwatchable mess.

Repeat.

Disney is doing the same.

I got through the series but had about half of it on Fast Foreword. Made season three under two hours. Didn't take away from anything. It was not as bad as that standalone movie thing they tried awhile back.

They should make a Cavill Cut.

Bring on the next - Witcher Season 4 - Season of the Simp. Or was that season three? Or the whole series?
 
Netflix on Friday announced that The Witcher: Sirens of the Deep, a new animated companion film to The Witcher, will premiere in late 2024...if you recognize the voice of Geralt in the trailer you’re not mistaken — it’s Doug Cockle, the same unmistakable voice from The Witcher video games...time-wise, this movie falls between Episodes 5 and 6 of The Witcher‘s first season...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ZgJCl62sA
 
polonyc2 said:
Netflix on Friday announced that The Witcher: Sirens of the Deep, a new animated companion film to The Witcher, will premiere in late 2024...if you recognize the voice of Geralt in the trailer you’re not mistaken — it’s Doug Cockle, the same unmistakable voice from The Witcher video games...time-wise, this movie falls between Episodes 5 and 6 of The Witcher‘s first season...


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7ZgJCl62sA
Click to expand...

So will this be terrible as well?
 
Aurelius said:
It's set in a fantasy world that may have been created by a Polish person, but it's not tied to the European landscape in the way something explicitly set in historic Japan might be. And I'd maintain that we shouldn't get upset about "accuracy" with fantasy universes in general; they may be allegories for real life, but they're not chained to real life.

As it stands, diversity is not why The Witcher is flailing about; it's the inadequate storytelling. Strong writing and top-notch acting are compelling no matter what the cast looks like.
Click to expand...
To each their own. I believe people are allowed to get upset about something they feel is important. I'm aware of many people annoyed with many aspects of the show, with the casting being one of them.

Two reasons I believe it's valid to critique - the casting in modern television and movies isn't coincidental or happenstance. It was very important for the people who do the casting for roles in Netflix's The Witcher, or Amazon's Lord of the Ring's series, to create a racially diverse cast. If they feel it's so important, which they clearly do, then I think it's equally important to criticize it every time it happens. After all, I'm not dedicating my life to casting & race-swapping fantasy roles for television productions. I'd argue they're far weirder and detrimental to cultural standards than me simply noticing their agenda.

Second reason, is that anyone who has a basic understanding of biology and anthropology understands that races look different because of what conditions and climate they evolved in. Different races hailing from different kingdoms & climates makes perfect sense. On the other hand, having racially diverse group populations in small rural fantasy settings is incredibly immersion breaking. If the appeal of fantasy is the creation of interesting worlds to immerse others in, turning various famous source material into neoliberal fanfiction is a perfect way to completely break immersion for viewers who don't share their political agenda.

Without beating around the bush, it's dystopian social conditioning and I believe it's meant to dumb down the very people who aren't paying attention to this sort of thing in the first place.

Netflix is famous for taking existing material and re-working it to include their own political angle, moreso than any streaming service I'm aware of. They deserve to get trashed for it. And if you think that this subject is mutually exclusive from the quality of the show, then I completely disagree. These are all symptoms of corporate soulless garbage.
 
NKD said:
Are you saying there were no other ethnicity in Europe back in the day and they are all white? People were migrating and exploring long before we all realized lmao.
Click to expand...

On southern europe, especially bigger coastal trading regions? Sure. Not living there probably but visiting and trading, definetly. Inland? Hell no. A black man or woman traveling into a middle european farming village who rarely see outsiders anyway would have caused quite an uproar, if not a superstitious lynch mob. Norse Vikings, the "poster boys" of white people, traveled really far and traded slaves as far as middle east. That way maybe some dark skinned people could have gotten up here but for example if the said dark skinned slaves became concubines their dark skin gene would have blended into white within couple of generations barely leaving a trace, at best perhaps giving a darker complexion on some people occasionally in their family line. But actually have dark people living among them? Outside of few slaves there was simply not big enough gene pool to allow that to happen. Unlike America they did not hoard exclusively dark skinned slaves that allowed them to create a culture and gene pool of their own, it was all a mixed pack of Irish, English, Arabs, anyone whom they decided to raid or who was willing to sell slaves to them.

Same would have happened for random travelers if they decide to stay, marry and procreate. The dark gene would have dissappeared into the overwhelming majority who live around him. The only way dark skinned people could have gotten a foothold here is a mass migration to have a viable gene pool to grow. This did not happen. Mass migrations did happen like Arabs into Egypt who eventually replaced a lot of the original Egyptians as majority, or the previously mentioned forced migration of exclusively black people as slaves into America, but that was a rare event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top