Witcher series for Netflix confirmed!

+
First, I don't understand how is the age of Witcher books relevant anyway? And second - I'll be very happy to be proven wrong by Netflix. But what I saw in the trailers don't give me much hope for a good adaptation. Let's see.

It's relevant because the dramatic action of stories will transform over time. Literature affects an audience based on their pre-existing context: culturally, linguistically, and personally. The more time that passes, the less and less able an audience is to view the piece through the lens intended by the author. This is why its passingly common for people to analyze even contemporary literature through the philosophy that "the writer is dead"...and why many writers refuse to speak too much about their intent.

So, even though a piece may have been wildly popular when it first debuted, less than one generation later, it's considered utterly ridiculous and fades into obscurity. Another piece may be completely ignored for 30 years, then suddenly lauded as a "major hit -- far ahead of its time" because suddenly that viewpoint and message is popular. A piece may be wildly successful in one country, but utterly incomprehensible to the next, since it's so deeply rooted in the colloquial nuances of that particular culture. Yet another piece may be so particular to a specific tradition or sub-culture, that it is instantly successful, but only among that small group of individuals, becoming a "cult hit".

So, I would say yes -- the age of a piece is a major consideration -- especially if trying to adapt it to a different medium. Also, it's impossible to completely remove contemporary context from the interpretation of any art. Objectivity is only feasible up to a finite limit. Everything is subjective at its core. Even our understanding of "objectivity" is reliant on our subjective experiences that granted us that unique understanding.

I think the series was nicely timed. That's big. I'll admit being more impressed by the trailer than I thought I would be. Whether or not it speaks to people now, we'll see.
 
So, I would say yes -- the age of a piece is a major consideration -- especially if trying to adapt it to a different medium.

Lord of the Rings disagrees with you.

Also, it's impossible to completely remove contemporary context from the interpretation of any art.

When turning a book into a movie/series, one needs to take certain liberties in order to make the material work for said media. Things always get lost in translation. Certain nuances are omitted or even whole events or characters which do not fit into the given time span. This is a problem regardless of when the book was written, or where, for that matter.

The director needs to ask the question of whether (s)he wants to tell an authentic tale (as much as possible) or use his/her vision to gives us a new version of the source material. Every generation, we see popular stories retold:
Different cultures: Internal Affairs, a Honk Kong movie, was retold as The Departed, in an American setting.
Different times: A Star is Born was retold in a new setting.
Different genres: Sometimes retellings even cross genres, like with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

I wanted to make a point, but I got kinda sidetracked. Is making a movie out of one of Shakespeare's pieces really more difficult because of its age? Interestingly enough, Romeo + Juliet tries to use the original lines, just like with Much Ado About Nothing, quite successfully.
 
Lord of the Rings disagrees with you.

So do many of Shakespeare's works, Gilgamesh, much poetry from various time periods, Ancient Greek Old Comedy is still a widely used style, unchanged for thousands of years...

There are certainly pieces that achieve a universality, speaking to a base level of humanity that pretty much anyone can relate to. However, take Shakespeare as an example, and it's often a struggle for people to discover why and how it still relates so much. Therein lies the challenge of time.


When turning a book into a movie/series, one needs to take certain liberties in order to make the material work for said media. Things always get lost in translation. Certain nuances are omitted or even whole events or characters which do not fit into the given time span. This is a problem regardless of when the book was written, or where, for that matter.

The director needs to ask the question of whether (s)he wants to tell an authentic tale (as much as possible) or use his/her vision to gives us a new version of the source material. Every generation, we see popular stories retold:
Different cultures: Internal Affairs, a Honk Kong movie, was retold as The Departed, in an American setting.
Different times: A Star is Born was retold in a new setting.
Different genres: Sometimes retellings even cross genres, like with Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.

I wanted to make a point, but I got kinda sidetracked. Is making a movie out of one of Shakespeare's pieces really more difficult because of its age? Interestingly enough, Romeo + Juliet tries to use the original lines, just like with Much Ado About Nothing, quite successfully.

Absolutely, but that's a separate consideration from having a story directly relate, as written, between one time-period and another. Take Lysistrata, for example. Still wildly applicable, on multiple levels. A battle between the sexes...chauvinism...feminism...love and sexuality...raucus humor -- but it's impossible for modern audiences to just naturally adapt to a traditional performance of it. Walking around on a mostly barren set with gigantic phallus strapped to oneself does not without contest read correctly unless one has already become familiarized with the theatrical styles of Ancient Greece. And that doesn't even begin to cover the inside jokes, double-entendre, idioms, etc. that will be without context and completely missed...

While sure, it's possible for pieces to survive, I'd say it's more the themes and styles that echo. The piece itself is not necessarily the piece we understand it to be, nor necessarily what was intended. But they still manage to read to us our way.
 
So, even though a piece may have been wildly popular when it first debuted, less than one generation later, it's considered utterly ridiculous and fades into obscurity

Looking forward to someone making series based on the Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny. A bit surprising, no one did it yet. It's IMHO a lot better than a Song of Ice and Fire for example, which for some reason became extremely popular in the film adaptation.
 
While sure, it's possible for pieces to survive, I'd say it's more the themes and styles that echo. The piece itself is not necessarily the piece we understand it to be, nor necessarily what was intended. But they still manage to read to us our way.

i.e. make it understandable and enjoyable for the current generation.

I understand now why I was conflicted. If you want to create a time piece, you need to highlight the differences of that period, either because it isn't clear to the viewer/reader or because you want to add weight to the given differences. For example, travelling during the Middle Ages was much slower and more difficult. Everyone knows that. But if your story is about the journey you might want to explicitly mention the aforementioned fact.

The conflict arises when it's actually not a time piece but a piece from that time. Oh yes, that was one brilliant wordplay, if I say so myself. Certain things that were obvious then, might be lost to the viewer/reader now and need to be explained. You mentioned jokes, which rarely stand the test of time.

You can feel it, can you not, what's coming next? Then there are the time pieces from that piece of time. For example, when during the French Revolution a tragicomedy is performed about the Roman Empire.

To get back to the point. If you want to make a story understandable and enjoyable for the current generation and culture, you need to change the context of the source material. However, this is only an issue if you want to remain authentic. A medieval tale made in 1960, will be different from one made in 2020 because people's viewpoints have changed (ignoring the technological advancements in recording). That doesn't mean it's more difficult now. It just means the feel of the movie has changed and certain aspects of said time are (more) noticeable.

Speaking of time, I am out of it. Gotta go. :)
 
Looking forward to someone making series based on the Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny. A bit surprising, no one did it yet. It's IMHO a lot better than a Song of Ice and Fire for example, which for some reason became extremely popular in the film adaptation.

I'd love to take a crack at The Wheel of Time. Or do something with R.A. Salvatore's work. The whole Drizzt Do'Urden saga is just begging to be made into a series of high-fantasy / action films.


Despite @4RM3D being gone, I'll respond then get this back on how this may reflect on The Witcher series:
i.e. make it understandable and enjoyable for the current generation.

Yup. By which we automatically lose the lens that the piece was trying to create. It intent may be similar, but it's both virtually impossible for it to be the same, and completely impossible to for us to tell even if it is.


I understand now why I was conflicted. If you want to create a time piece, you need to highlight the differences of that period, either because it isn't clear to the viewer/reader or because you want to add weight to the given differences. For example, travelling during the Middle Ages was much slower and more difficult. Everyone knows that. But if your story is about the journey you might want to explicitly mention the aforementioned fact.

That's a fair example. Even more destructive is the evolution of language -- especially slang expression. Even worse is accepted social and cultural norms. Which can literally be the opposite of the modern day, such as how "turning the other cheek" would be viewed by society. Suffice it to say such a scene would read extremely differently to someone in the A. Roman Empire, and vice versa, any such scenes written back then are prone to be horribly mis-interpreted by a modern audience.


The conflict arises when it's actually not a time piece but a piece from that time. Oh yes, that was one brilliant wordplay, if I say so myself. Certain things that were obvious then, might be lost to the viewer/reader now and need to be explained. You mentioned jokes, which rarely stand the test of time.

You can feel it, can you not, what's coming next? Then there are the time pieces from that piece of time. For example, when during the French Revolution a tragicomedy is performed about the Roman Empire.

I agree it goes both ways. On the one hand, you've got things happening for reasons that seem random or insane, and on the other, we've suddenly got kilts and stirrups in 1100 AD Scotland.


To get back to the point. If you want to make a story understandable and enjoyable for the current generation and culture, you need to change the context of the source material. However, this is only an issue if you want to remain authentic. A medieval tale made in 1960, will be different from one made in 2020 because people's viewpoints have changed (ignoring the technological advancements in recording). That doesn't mean it's more difficult now. It just means the feel of the movie has changed and certain aspects of said time are (more) noticeable.

Speaking of time, I am out of it. Gotta go. :)

It's like a great big game of "telephone", where one person whispers something to the next person in line. By the 20th person, whatever was originally said is often mangled beyond all recognition. And that's just 20 people. Actively trying to get it right. Oh...yeah...I'm sure we're so terribly accurate remembering what happened 1,000 years ago based on a few scraps of writing, a rusted weapon, and some pottery shards. Sure we are...

But I think the whole concept of The Witcher Universe, people's modern day contextual awareness of high-fantasy, and the industry's level of skill in dealing with it meaningfully and effectively (compared to fantasy movies in, say, the 1970s and '80s) mean that I would expect the creators of the series to be able to do a good job.

Now is definitely the time.

As for all the "tribulations" surrounding the show...well...that stuff isn't going to be a recognizable factor in 30 years' time. I think that Sapkowski's work has enough meat to stand on its own. I think the story has enough universality to survive and do well.
 
But I think the whole concept of The Witcher Universe, people's modern day contextual awareness of high-fantasy, and the industry's level of skill in dealing with it meaningfully and effectively (compared to fantasy movies in, say, the 1970s and '80s) mean that I would expect the creators of the series to be able to do a good job.

Let's go back to the Witcher TV series. If fantasy is timeless, would it matter in which period it was written? Yes, for example, certain social conventions might have been used as an inspiration for a fantasy world. Ironically, though, it doesn't matter (to the reader) if those conventions (and whatnot) were based on actual stuff or made up my the author, as long as they are clear to the reader. Fantasy doesn't change, but our interpretation of it does and the effect it has on our society. This might also cause a ripple effect, creating new work inspired by.

Let's go back to the Witcher TV series for real, now. What I worry about is whether the creators understand what the Witcher is about, its essence and if they can bring that to the screen. For example, Ghost in the Shell, its director just copy-pasted scenes from the anime, without understanding it. While I like the movie, it lacks the authenticity. Now, compare that with (Battle Angel) Alita. A flawed movie, yes, but one with a whole lot of heart and feelings put into it. The director recreated the experience that the Manga tried to convey. At least, that's what I think.

I am skeptical about the Witcher TV series. Then again, Andrzej Sapkowski was positive about it. If that isn't for show (pun intended), then it does give me some more hope along with the more promising recent trailer.
 
As an American, i can see what this will be like a mile a away: It will have a very American cast, will reflect American values and will duly ignore everything Sapkowski ever cared about with regard to his books. Is he daft or is he thrilled to finally be mainstream enough to tell CDPR to stuff it? Let's find out!

If anyone of you moderators claim I'm being political here: I'm not.
 
I am skeptical about the Witcher TV series. Then again, Andrzej Sapkowski was positive about it. If that isn't for show (pun intended), then it does give me some more hope along with the more promising recent trailer.

Do not put much weight on that. Sapkowski was positive, because "this time" he signed a proper contract, so he has a personal interest for the Witcher series to be successful.
Post automatically merged:

As an American, i can see what this will be like a mile a away: It will have a very American cast, will reflect American values and will duly ignore everything Sapkowski ever cared about with regard to his books. Is he daft or is he thrilled to finally be mainstream enough to tell CDPR to stuff it? Let's find out!

If anyone of you moderators claim I'm being political here: I'm not.

Yeah - I think that most of the people working on this series would not even be able to grasp the topics and references in the books, which are kind of obvious to the east Europe readers. That's why it will be heavily focused on action and romance topics, because those are "easy" to get.
 
The trailer is focused on that, since they are easier to present in such short sequence - they make flashy images unlike some other topics. I doubt they didn't have experts to consult them on all relevant topics from the books. They aren't amateurs.
Post automatically merged:

And regarding experts consulting and modern series. For instance Chernobyl mini series is an excellent work, precisely because authors did extensive research of the topic and had experts consulting them. So I don't buy the argument that directors and script writers can't get something because it's Eastern European or whatever else different from their background.
 
Last edited:
The trailer is focused on that, since they are easier to present in such short sequence - they make flashy images unlike some other topics. I doubt they didn't have experts to consult them on all relevant topics from the books. They aren't amateurs.
Post automatically merged:

And regarding experts consulting and modern series. For instance Chernobyl minu series is an excellent work, precisely because authors did extensive research of the topic and had experts consulting them. So I don't buy the argument that directors and script writers can't get something because it's Eastern European or whatever else different from their background.

Question: do you think that Netflix writers will make the "extra step" to research the Witcher background? Which is based on very troublesome and complex European history, mixed up with Spakowski's imagination? Sapkowski has a really good historical background, which would be obvious for everyone who read his "The Hussite Trilogy". I don't think that Netflix writers will be able to match that.

Charnobyl series is a bad example. It describes a relatively short and VERY well documented HISTORICAL event. Which makes writing a good script so much easier. And they STILL made mistakes or omissions (deliberately or by mistake) Also - it was not produced by Netflix.
 
You argument wasn't about historical or non historical aspects. Your argument basically was that since Sapkowski is from Eastern Europe, only Eastern Europeans can get his references. That's simply wrong for those who do proper research.

And yes, to make series based on such books, they need not only to read them through naturally, but to also have experts on that advising them, to prevent such kind of gaps. That is if they want to have good quality result.

I'm not familiar with director who runs it, but I don't see why Netflix would specifically differ just because it's Netflix. They either invest in quality, or they don't.
 
As an American, i can see what this will be like a mile a away: It will have a very American cast, will reflect American values and will duly ignore everything Sapkowski ever cared about with regard to his books. Is he daft or is he thrilled to finally be mainstream enough to tell CDPR to stuff it? Let's find out!

If anyone of you moderators claim I'm being political here: I'm not.

The majority of the cast appears to be British. Geralt, Ciri, Yennefer, and Jaskier (Dandelion) are all played by Brits, for example. The actors who aren't British are mostly European. It is similar to Game of Thrones in that regard.

On any case the nation of origin for the actor shouldn't matter so long as they put in a good performance. Were you bothered by Viggo Mortensen as Aragon in Lord of the Rings? Or Elijah Wood as Frodo Baggins and Sean Astin as Samwise Gamgee? All three are American actors.
 
Skeptical given the choice of actors for the various roles but hope it kills it. Really more hyped for The Wheel of Time series being produced by Amazon which has nailed the look of the primary characters.
 
Hmm. Looks good. I hope 6-7 season coming. With an ending that makes me cry for an other 6-7 :)
 
Top Bottom