Gotta concur with you on that. The Witcher is super dark and all that, but I've yet to see a medieval fantasy that is a real depiction of historical Middle Ages from our world in everything but the fantasy element
Whoa! Some people are getting a bit mad in here no?
Its just a show, and if it entices people into the world of the Witcher, then that is a great thing to be sure.
Peter Jackson's adaptation of LoTR is an example of this. True its not perfect and it does not cover everything in the books, but how could it? (The extended editions are the best ones)
But they did open people up to reading the books and delving into JRR Tolkien's master crafted world that he created. I saw The Fellowship before I read the books, I had not even heard of the books beforehand (I was quite young at the time) and after watching the film, then going on to read the books, it was fantastic. The following two films just added to the wonder, sure they were exactly like the book, but that was ok since it was just an adaptation.
I have no idea why people think that one adaptation (Witcher or LoTR) lessens or cheapens the primary sources ... because it doesn't
Its just a show, and if it entices people into the world of the Witcher, then that is a great thing to be sure.
Peter Jackson's adaptation of LoTR is an example of this. True its not perfect and it does not cover everything in the books, but how could it? (The extended editions are the best ones
)But they did open people up to reading the books and delving into JRR Tolkien's master crafted world that he created. I saw The Fellowship before I read the books, I had not even heard of the books beforehand (I was quite young at the time) and after watching the film, then going on to read the books, it was fantastic. The following two films just added to the wonder, sure they were exactly like the book, but that was ok since it was just an adaptation.
I have no idea why people think that one adaptation (Witcher or LoTR) lessens or cheapens the primary sources ... because it doesn't
I obviously meant as far as how women are treated in the books, as in, horribly. The things that happen to Ciri, for example, are an atrocity. However, it provides context and context MATTERS.
Aye, they definetly don't lessen them... it only helps to make them more known and popular, regardless of the adaptations qualityWhoa! Some people are getting a bit mad in here no?
Its just a show, and if it entices people into the world of the Witcher, then that is a great thing to be sure.
Peter Jackson's adaptation of LoTR is an example of this. True its not perfect and it does not cover everything in the books, but how could it? (The extended editions are the best ones
But they did open people up to reading the books and delving into JRR Tolkien's master crafted world that he created. I saw The Fellowship before I read the books, I had not even heard of the books beforehand (I was quite young at the time) and after watching the film, then going on to read the books, it was fantastic. The following two films just added to the wonder, sure they were exactly like the book, but that was ok since it was just an adaptation.
I have no idea why people think that one adaptation (Witcher or LoTR) lessens or cheapens the primary sources ... because it doesn't
Moderator: As reminder from our rules, when perusing the forums, you will often find people passionately expressing their opinions, which may differ from yours. Regardless of these differences, please, keep the following basic rules in mind:
- always treat others with kindness and respect
- do not insult others and try not to easily take offense
It makes me angry when the source material is butchered. Like, why even bother if you're not going to respect it? Just make your own and call it something else.
Seriously, the old Polish TV show made about the Witcher is legit better even tho it has the budget of a highschool play.
Aye, they definetly don't lessen them... it only helps to make them more known and popular, regardless of the adaptations quality
Precisely!
I'd say it can even help people visualise what is happening or understand the context via visual learning. Just look at the Charge of the Rohirrim! In the book it was fantastic, on screen, with the music, absolutely epic. But again, it wasn't exactly like the book, but its overall message, that the Rohirrim were riding to a battle they were not sure they could win just to help their allies, that carried over. The point being, they would face evil regardless of the cost since they knew it was the right thing to do.
Tolkien was a true master, but he did somewhat gloss over the battles, because he preferred world and character building. He could spend paragraphs describing what something was, or where it was and why, to the point you could feel like you were there
But to circle back to the Witcher TV series, yeah I'd say it helps the world of the Witcher more than harming it, mainly because it brings new people into the genre.
Post automatically merged:
Well it is only an adaptation, and they cut what they deemed to be necessary. There were plenty of parts that I wasn't sure about since I've read the books, but on the whole it was ok. "Not great, not terrible" - Dyatlov
You have to remember that many people have not played the games or read the books either, so they have to cater to that too. Just look at Game of Thrones, lots got cut or changed, but it wrangled lots of people into the fantasy genre. But lets not talk about the ending .. its .. too soon
I understand what you are saying, honestly, but if its not your cup of tea, that's ok too. Perhaps have another read of the books to wash away the thoughts of the show, since the books are fantastic
Last edited:
I might give it a chance. Maybe.
Not a Witcher super-fan or anything, but I've played all of the games more than once and read The Last Wish ... I lasted about three, maybe four episodes into season 1 before giving up. Nothing about it sat right for me.
Not a Witcher super-fan or anything, but I've played all of the games more than once and read The Last Wish ... I lasted about three, maybe four episodes into season 1 before giving up. Nothing about it sat right for me.
Precisely!
I'd say it can even help people visualise what is happening or understand the context via visual learning. Just look at the Charge of the Rohirrim! In the book it was fantastic, on screen, with the music, absolutely epic. But again, it wasn't exactly like the book, but its overall message, that the Rohirrim were riding to a battle they were not sure they could win just to help their allies, that carried over. The point being, they would face evil regardless of the cost since they knew it was the right thing to do.
Tolkien was a true master, but he did somewhat gloss over the battles, because he preferred world and character building. He could spend paragraphs describing what something was, or where it was and why, to the point you could feel like you were there
But to circle back to the Witcher TV series, yeah I'd say it helps the world of the Witcher more than harming it, mainly because it brings new people into the genre.
Post automatically merged:
Well it is only an adaptation, and they cut what they deemed to be necessary. There were plenty of parts that I wasn't sure about since I've read the books, but on the whole it was ok. "Not great, not terrible" - Dyatlov
You have to remember that many people have not played the games or read the books either, so they have to cater to that too. Just look at Game of Thrones, lots got cut or changed, but it wrangled lots of people into the fantasy genre. But lets not talk about the ending .. its .. too soon
I understand what you are saying, honestly, but if its not your cup of tea, that's ok too. Perhaps have another read of the books to wash away the thoughts of the show, since the books are fantastic
How does making the show nonsensical and changing things for no reason cater to people who haven't read the books or played the games? Like why did they change how magic worked? Or make Nilfgaard cartoonishly evil.
In GoT they just cut few D plots.
Until Season 5 when they ran out of book material and the wheels just fell off
It was precisely GOT what got me to know ASOIAF (never ever even heard of if before), and after reading it I now know that evil Dany was present in the books since the very beginning in a very subtle way (but not changed from Jesus to Satan in a single day like in the show).Precisely!
I'd say it can even help people visualise what is happening or understand the context via visual learning. Just look at the Charge of the Rohirrim! In the book it was fantastic, on screen, with the music, absolutely epic. But again, it wasn't exactly like the book, but its overall message, that the Rohirrim were riding to a battle they were not sure they could win just to help their allies, that carried over. The point being, they would face evil regardless of the cost since they knew it was the right thing to do.
Tolkien was a true master, but he did somewhat gloss over the battles, because he preferred world and character building. He could spend paragraphs describing what something was, or where it was and why, to the point you could feel like you were there
But to circle back to the Witcher TV series, yeah I'd say it helps the world of the Witcher more than harming it, mainly because it brings new people into the genre.
Post automatically merged:
Well it is only an adaptation, and they cut what they deemed to be necessary. There were plenty of parts that I wasn't sure about since I've read the books, but on the whole it was ok. "Not great, not terrible" - Dyatlov
You have to remember that many people have not played the games or read the books either, so they have to cater to that too. Just look at Game of Thrones, lots got cut or changed, but it wrangled lots of people into the fantasy genre. But lets not talk about the ending .. its .. too soon
I understand what you are saying, honestly, but if its not your cup of tea, that's ok too. Perhaps have another read of the books to wash away the thoughts of the show, since the books are fantastic
Just like the games and now the show will get people into the Saga of Geralt books
I like the series for what it is. I went into watching it knowing it wasn't going to be 100% per the books or the games, but would be its own experience. Henry Cavill has done a wonderful job imho to bring Geralt to life and incorporate source material as he goes. My biggest peeve with how the first season was run, was all of the time hopping.
Those not aware of the books or the games were easily confused as to what was happening when, like my wife, and I had to spend a lot of time explaining what was happening rather than her being able to enjoy it more.
I'm excited for the next season.
Those not aware of the books or the games were easily confused as to what was happening when, like my wife, and I had to spend a lot of time explaining what was happening rather than her being able to enjoy it more.
I'm excited for the next season.
Wait, that's what you thought I meant? No, mate, you've completely misunderstood. I was referring to the prose and the way characters are described physically.
Apparently it's more noticeable in the short stories; men getting quite simple descriptions whereas women getting ultra detailed pervy descriptions for no apparent reason.
And give 'em that infamous scrotum armor
Post automatically merged:
At least the Witcher books finished well before the show started.In GoT they just cut few D plots.
Until Season 5 when they ran out of book material and the wheels just fell off
I wonder if they have any intention of adapting the games as well?
There is a reason, if you read the books you would know.
It's the sorceresses, like Yennefer and Triss, who are detailed that way because they are all supernaturally beautiful to the point of unreal due to the magic they all use to change their bodies and facial features. Yes, Yennefer is a hunchback in the books too before she uses magic to fix herself. They literally have no imperfections.
Normal people like Shani and Ciri are not depicted that way at all.
Post automatically merged:
I hope not, but if the show does well once it starts properly and gets past the short stories, they probably will if the bag of money is big enough.
Last edited:
How does making the show nonsensical and changing things for no reason cater to people who haven't read the books or played the games? Like why did they change how magic worked? Or make Nilfgaard cartoonishly evil.
In GoT they just cut few D plots.
Until Season 5 when they ran out of book material and the wheels just fell off
The change to how magic works is obviously odd to you and I since we've read the books, but to a new comer its neither here nor there since they do not know anything about it. And if they then move on to the books, they'll then find a different version of how magic is used, they can then decide what they like from that point on.
Nilfgaard is pretty brutal in the books too, they did put Cintra to the torch (though not on Emhyr's command if memory servers me right). The bigger issue for me was obviously the armour, like what's wrong with good old 14th/15th century armour painted black right? It was that they have seemed to make them religious fanatics, see the guy that Geralt killed in the castle when looking for Ciri.
Regarding GoT and its woeful ending. Yes in the books there's hints of Daenerys madness, but the show went from "I want to help every one" to "oh boy here I go killing again" at the drop of a hat with little build up. Pacing, poor writing, plot holes, and abysmal battle tactics killed the show imo.
Post automatically merged:
Yeah that change of character in Daenerys .. too quick and little to no build up .. how no write a characters development 101.
But yes, anything that can lead people to the books and get lost in the world of the Witcher is a good thing
The point I mentioned is was, that the change servers no purpose and makes no sense.
Nilfgaard attacked because the Northers Kingdoms kept raiding border towns and hiring pirates from Skellige to attack Imperial trade ships. Emhyr had no choice but to respond. The Northern Kings wanted war, just not to start it.
If I understand correctly, some of the changes are because Netflix wants to take the series in a somewhat different direction than the books, and write their own independent stories for the Witcher world and its popular characters. This very understandably has some people who are fans of the books fired up. Those characters already have stories, and the way a lot of essential things in the lore of the world work are already established. The series is partially relying on those existing stories and lore for its current stories to make any sense, but is also altering them as it goes. That's a tough pill to swallow.How does making the show nonsensical and changing things for no reason cater to people who haven't read the books or played the games? Like why did they change how magic worked? Or make Nilfgaard cartoonishly evil.
In GoT they just cut few D plots.
Until Season 5 when they ran out of book material and the wheels just fell off
I've never really thought of this book to TV conversion as being like GoT. It seems to me more like the Shannara television conversion, which thankfully went up in flames. (sorry but not sorry Terry Brooks -- you shouldn't have sold your literary soul to MTV).
I think the Netflix version of the Witcher is vastly better than Shannara, but I'd be shocked if it ever achieves anything on the level of GoT acceptance. The scope is just too narrow, being focused around two or three characters, rather than an epic conflict in which the characters are mostly storytelling devices. However, I think Netflix is hoping for something big, and the changes are what they think will give their expanded story lines broader appeal. I'm skeptical, but I guess we'll see.
All that aside, I enjoyed the first season, and have read that the second season is better. So, I'm looking forward to it.
"This IP is popular, let's fundamentally change the setting and turn characters into something they are not"
Show gets cancelled.
"How did that happen?!"
No sense to those who know the lore, I agree. But the point being that those who don't, it doesn't really matter to them. And the objective of the show is to get as many people watching it as possible, ie, there will be more people watching it that do not know the lore vs those who do.
Plus, I guess it was someone's decision to make it stand out from the books too, heck, here we are a year later and we are still taking about it, so it stuck with us
Yeah we know that from the books, but my point was that Niflgaard was very brutal, the slaughtered Cintra.
Ok but why tho.No sense to those who know the lore, I agree. But the point being that those who don't, it doesn't really matter to them. And the objective of the show is to get as many people watching it as possible, ie, there will be more people watching it that do not know the lore vs those who do.
Plus, I guess it was someone's decision to make it stand out from the books too, heck, here we are a year later and we are still taking about it, so it stuck with us
Machiavellian, not brutal for the sake of brutality. It's better to crush your enemies in a short war than drag it out. You'll spare lives in the long run and deter opposition and uprising.
It's what all "great" conquerors have done in history. From the days of Assyrians to Alexander, Caesar, Attila, Genghis and the like.