Nah, if there is a another series or something, it's better off being handled by Polish or other European outfits. I feel they'll get a better understanding of the material because of the reduced language and cultural gap.
Actually I think Michał Żebrowski is a decent actor. But whoever directed those series obviously didn't respect the books well.Nars said:
Hell, no.cmdrsilverbolt said:
Here in Poland, or in pretty much every other Slavic country there is not enough money to make it happend, not to mention complete lack of experience in this regard. Any other country to the west from Poland in Europe would have similar to USA "language and cultural gap". The difference is that, USA have good mix of talent, experience and money to pull this off.
And Saga is located in pretty standard medieval fantasy setting. The games (especially the first one) are much more "Slavic", than the books. Ofcourse there is still some... how to call it... "Slavic vibe" in dialogue and bestiary, but it is not such a huge "language and cultural gap", as some people think. Polish Middle Ages wasn't so different, from the rest of Europe. ;P
Alright, I'll take your word for it. The reason I said so was because usually prose and poetry is better translated or adapted by someone "closer" to the author, but that doesn't have to have geographical requirements 
/>
Also, I think American television cannot work with material which has any subtlety. I mean, look at how GoT has turned out (not that I am saying that it's a bad show). It's true we have talent and resources here, so that's a plus.
But I don't know- have you ever seen the US remake of Fawlty Towers? Lol. Probably not a good example, but that show and others are the reason why I am reluctant about your suggestion.
/> Also, I think American television cannot work with material which has any subtlety. I mean, look at how GoT has turned out (not that I am saying that it's a bad show). It's true we have talent and resources here, so that's a plus.
But I don't know- have you ever seen the US remake of Fawlty Towers? Lol. Probably not a good example, but that show and others are the reason why I am reluctant about your suggestion.
If you compare this with how Wiedźmin in Poland turned out... I mean, whenever I'm unfortunate enought to see pieces of this "movie/TV series" I see bunch of amateur people larping.cmdrsilverbolt said:
Well, Fawlty Towers is really bad example, 'cause it is soaked in English culture, and humor, and that are qualities that simply can't be copy-pasted on other ground, and for love of God, you can't copy John Cleese this guy is unquestionable genius.cmdrsilverbolt said:
I guess it doesn't matter as long as whoever directs the show has access to translators who can really get to the soul of the source material.
And how do you expect to make a good show when no one comprehends the source material
Notice I didn't say "understand", but "comprehend".
When you're adapting a book for another medium, you have to translate more than the literal events.
For example, you can show a character eating a fruit, but if you don't comprehend what the fruit means as it is implied in the book, then you can't convey that feeling in the adaptation.
Remember when Renly teases Stannis with biting the peach? That moment was really well conveyed because the show previously establishes Renly's joie de vivre and then foiled it against Stannis's severe adherence to duty.
So, it's important to get to the subtext of the source material for a good adaptation, and in this case it depends on good translations =)
Notice I didn't say "understand", but "comprehend".
When you're adapting a book for another medium, you have to translate more than the literal events.
For example, you can show a character eating a fruit, but if you don't comprehend what the fruit means as it is implied in the book, then you can't convey that feeling in the adaptation.
Remember when Renly teases Stannis with biting the peach? That moment was really well conveyed because the show previously establishes Renly's joie de vivre and then foiled it against Stannis's severe adherence to duty.
So, it's important to get to the subtext of the source material for a good adaptation, and in this case it depends on good translations =)
Ok, now you've lost me. Simply I can't see the difference between these two words. I even check in dictionary and I'm still lost. If you could describe it differently maybe? [the language barrier mode on].cmdrsilverbolt said:And how do you expect to make a good show when no one comprehends the source material
Notice I didn't say "understand", but "comprehend".
But it is probably due to the fact that the book has a omniscient narrator, not so much due to cultural differences. As I said before, Middle Ages in Poland wasn't so different from Middle Ages in other western European countries. Saga is placed mostly in generic European setting with a little Slavic accents, mostly in names of places, considerable doses of spirits and bestiary. Things like that.cmdrsilverbolt said:
All I'm saying is as far as I know and understand my own culture I can conclude that the film adaptation of books won't be so hard for American director because it is a small chance that something will be lost in translation.
I honestly don't, as I didn't read or watched GoT. I know, I know I'm a weirdo.cmdrsilverbolt said:
Indeed.cmdrsilverbolt said:
Yeah, you've convinced me that there will be minimal cultural barriers.
But see, it's still important to have good translators because words and phrases can have many layers of meaning, as we see here =)
On their surface, understand and comprehend are synonymous. But "understand" means grasping the fact of something, while comprehend means grasping not only the fact, but also its implication in the bigger picture, so that your understanding of something is comprehensive.
It's the difference between knowing that the peach is not just a peach. Although, sometimes a peach is just a peach And that's why you need to be able to distinguish between such scenarios.
Writers like to have fun with words, that's why reading prose and poetry is interesting and entertaining. All in all, I am sure there are many capable translators who would be able to comprehend Sapkowski's writing for a TV adaptation.
But see, it's still important to have good translators because words and phrases can have many layers of meaning, as we see here =)
On their surface, understand and comprehend are synonymous. But "understand" means grasping the fact of something, while comprehend means grasping not only the fact, but also its implication in the bigger picture, so that your understanding of something is comprehensive.
It's the difference between knowing that the peach is not just a peach. Although, sometimes a peach is just a peach
And that's why you need to be able to distinguish between such scenarios.Writers like to have fun with words, that's why reading prose and poetry is interesting and entertaining. All in all, I am sure there are many capable translators who would be able to comprehend Sapkowski's writing for a TV adaptation.
Thanks a lot! :]cmdrsilverbolt said:Yeah, you've convinced me that there will be minimal cultural barriers.
But see, it's still important to have good translators because words and phrases can have many layers of meaning, as we see here =)
On their surface, understand and comprehend are synonymous. But "understand" means grasping the fact of something, while comprehend means grasping not only the fact, but also its implication in the bigger picture, so that your understanding of something is comprehensive.
It's the difference between knowing that the peach is not just a peach. Although, sometimes a peach is just a peach
Writers like to have fun with words, that's why reading prose and poetry is interesting and entertaining. All in all, I am sure there are many capable translators who would be able to comprehend Sapkowski's writing for a TV adaptation.
I've learned something today. :]
Hire experts who do. Jackson made LOTR and The Hobbit consulting with a lot of experts in Tolkien's lore. Including for example those who comprehend Tolkien's artificial languages. Therefore they even use them creatively in the films.cmdrsilverbolt said:And how do you expect to make a good show when no one comprehends the source material
Notice I didn't say "understand", but "comprehend".
Gimli (to Haldir): "Ishkhaqwi ai durugnul!"
Aragorn: "That was not so courteous."
They made this up for fun.
@ Gilrond: I don't know what you're talking about. No such work exists to my knowledge.
It's a quote from the LOTR filmcmdrsilverbolt said:
(see from 1:23):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h9qWecb_S4
The point is, it's not in the book, and film makers had fun experimenting with Khuzdul.
Yeah, I didn't want to go full on nerd, but if they really wanted to focus on being consistent with the languages, they could have at least gotten the pronunciation of Gandalf's name right. So much for the experts, haha. If you can't tell, this is a sore spot for me :/ That's why I just like to appreciate the movies as movies, and not really as reflective of Tolkien's work.
The names did sound somewhat off for me. Gandalf isn't the only example. For example the name Durin is supposed to sound d-ʊ-rIn and not as d-ʊəʳ-rIn. And etc.