Witcher series for Netflix confirmed!

[Gilthoniel]

It might have been one sided, and short on Geralt's part, but I would not say it is not important at all, at least not from her character's point of view. And it is referenced in what is essentially the finale to the saga, the chapter about the Rivian pogrom, why bring up something there if it is so unimportant?

I do think it is worth to mention, for Triss's character development and to show how special the Yen/Geralt thing is. BUT I do not think it's necessary to make an episode about that as Rawl suggested, Just a line of dialogue or a short flashback like in the book will do just fine. There is a Yen jealousy and Triss lust and obsessive love for Geralt that would be great to show in "Blood of Elves" themed episodes.

Anyway I simply don't agree to add "supposed love triangle" episode between short stories.

 

[Gilthoniel]

Oh, lookie here. Zyvik came back and the good news started pouring through

Great timing Zyvik Great news indeed for all Witcher fans

 

[Gilthoniel]

I'd probably squeeze Season of Storms in there too. As for Triss...Her relationship with Geralt was explained pretty well in the third book. I don't think it needs any further explanation, considering that we already have stories wich deal with unrequited love like Shard of Ice and A Little Sacrifice.

Exactly my point

 

[sv3672]

As for Triss...Her relationship with Geralt was explained pretty well in the third book.

It could be shown in episode(s) about that book then. But I think Rawls' list of episodes was made with the assumption that adaptations of the novels might never be made, only those of the short stories.

 

[Guest 3847602]

"Book Triss" is fairly complex and interesting character, it's not that bad idea to see a little more of her than the books showed (within reasonable boundaries, ofc). That being said I can't really see them focusing too much on Geralt's fling with her, especially since Yennefer's biggest rival lives south of the Yaruga (assuming they plan to cover the whole Saga eventually).

 

[Zyvik]

It could be shown in episode(s) about that book then. But I think Rawls' list of episodes was made with the assumption that adaptations of the novels might never be made, only those of the short stories.

That could work. It makes me wonder how they'll do "seduced with a little help of magic" part. It was a pretty vague line.

That being said I can't really see them focusing too much on Geralt's fling with her, especially since Yennefer's biggest rival lives south of the Yaruga.

True that

 

[Unhit]

B. Definitely B.

If I were doing it ... first season would be structured like "the last wish" but consist of material from both The Last Wish and The Sword of Destiny where most episodes begin as Geralt talking to people in Nennekke's temple as he heals from the wounds in "The Witcher." 13 Episodes for netflix correct?

1. The Witcher
2. The Voice of Reason (part)
...

I also think it is reasonable to start with the short stories, and the order seems mostly fitting. But I think A Question of Price would be better suited for a short prologue before the first episode (similar to the Nightwatch expedition that gets ambushed by White Walkers in GoT S01E01). This works better for the chronology and prevents using flashbacks later (which, imo, is often not exactly the smoothest way of storytelling on screen especially), and it is also a nice prologue in general, imo, because you have the supposed main character (Geralt), the "true" protagonist (well, indirectly - Ciri), and the main political player (Emhyr) of the following series present.

Edit: then again, it's definitely challenging to pack all that into a prologue of ideally no more than ten minutes, without a feeling of the scene being rushed, and without leaving the audience just thinking "WTF?".

 

[Rawls]

It could be shown in episode(s) about that book then. But I think Rawls' list of episodes was made with the assumption that adaptations of the novels might never be made, only those of the short stories.

Exactly ... with netflix you never know how many seasons your gonna get. I'd like to see that story told.

Specifically I was thinking of this incident Yen referred to in The Tower of the Swallow -

‘You are deceiving me, brat. I know your face; I know you too well. It’s the same look you had when you started sleeping with Geralt behind my back. Back then you put on the same sheepish, innocent mask that I see on your face now. And it means the same thing now that it meant back then!’

 

[sv3672]

That being said I can't really see them focusing too much on Geralt's fling with her, especially since Yennefer's biggest rival lives south of the Yaruga (assuming they plan to cover the whole Saga eventually).

The quote from this post is Yennefer's last conversation before the events of the pogrom. It shows her jealousy (of Triss, who still did not really let go of the witcher) and talks about Geralt's temptation. So, I do not think this "fling" is that unimportant, it is a thread that runs until the end of the saga. Which is one of the reasons why in my (probably unpopular) opinion the games - while not executed perfectly - fundamentally made the right choices, they did not focus on Fringilla Vigo because her story already received closure.

That could work. It makes me wonder how they'll do "seduced with a little help of magic" part. It was a pretty vague line.

They leave it vague, too, if it was originally written that way?

 

[Guest 3847602]

The quote from this post is Yennefer's last conversation before the events of the pogrom. It shows her jealousy (of Triss, who still did not really let go of the witcher) and talks about Geralt's temptation. So, I do not think this "fling" is that unimportant, it is a thread that runs until the end of the saga.

My point was that if they plan on doing the adaptation of the whole Saga - Triss is very unlikely to be presented as the biggest threat to Yennefer. Usually, the less important events and characters get trimmed in the process of adapting the books into tv shows and films. Triss' short-lived relationship with Geralt have no impact on the plot other than giving Yennefer a reason for jealous outbursts.
If they are aiming at the short stories only - then Triss is mentioned only on 2 or 3 occasions, so it's even less likely in that case to see her fling with Geralt expanded upon.
Again, I don't have anything against it, I agree with Rawls about it being interesting to see, it's just that I don't expect every little detail from the books to be presented in the series.

 

[Zyvik]

I think Triss will be very lucky to even get a mention in the adaptaition of the first two books.

 

[Samiel27]

The quote from this post is Yennefer's last conversation before the events of the pogrom. It shows her jealousy (of Triss, who still did not really let go of the witcher) and talks about Geralt's temptation. So, I do not think this "fling" is that unimportant, it is a thread that runs until the end of the saga. Which is one of the reasons why in my (probably unpopular) opinion the games - while not executed perfectly - fundamentally made the right choices, they did not focus on Fringilla Vigo because her story already received closure.

If they are staying true to the books (and I hope it's successful) then they'll only need to mention it in passing. I don't want a convoluted "love triangle" like in the games---it really wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things. The script should evolve around the important short stories and the relationships among the characters (mainly Geralt, Dandelion, Ciri and Yennefer). I believe depicitng these characters will be one of the most difficult aspects for the actors and directors.

 

[zappy3]

The quote from this post is Yennefer's last conversation before the events of the pogrom. It shows her jealousy (of Triss, who still did not really let go of the witcher) and talks about Geralt's temptation. So, I do not think this "fling" is that unimportant, it is a thread that runs until the end of the saga. Which is one of the reasons why in my (probably unpopular) opinion the games - while not executed perfectly - fundamentally made the right choices, they did not focus on Fringilla Vigo because her story already received closure.

Well I do agree that the Geralt/Triss thing is important regarding Triss' storyline and character development. But I don't get what you're saying about Fringilla getting more closure on this? I mean Triss' entire storyline in the books is basically about resolving her dilemnas regarding her relationships with both Yennefer and Geralt. In the end Triss very clearly accepts that Geralt and Yennefer belong together and she makes the choice to move on, to put her friendship with Yen above the lodge and above her "love" for Geralt (whether or not she really loves him or just has a crush on him is another debate). In the end Yennefer sacrifices herself trying to save Geralt while Triss just stands there watching her because 1) her love for Geralt is not worth such a sacrifice and 2) she doesn't belong there. So I think whatever was between Triss and Geralt gets as much closure as it can, way more than the Fringilla thing.
I think the Geralt/Triss stuff HAS to be mentioned in the tv show but I also think that making a whole episode about it is making it look more important than it really is, regarding the main story (Triss' storyline is sure great but she is only a supporting character here). So I think some lines of dialogue about it, or why not a short flashback will be more than enough.

 

[sv3672]

My point was that if they plan on doing the adaptation of the whole Saga - Triss is very unlikely to be presented as the biggest threat to Yennefer.

Yennefer does seem to perceive a threat at the very end, though. Anyway, I am not saying that it will not be ignored by the TV show, it could very well be that Triss will not appear or even be mentioned at all, but I also do not think it is entirely right to constantly dismiss the relationship altogether as a "short lived fling", even if it is mostly one sided, and only temptation on Geralt's part, it is important (and not short lived) in particular for Triss' character. Then again, if she is not considered important enough to the story overall (there is only so much content you can have in a movie or TV show), then it would also be an understandable decision to just not include her in the show to begin with, especially if it is only about the short stories.

I mean Triss' entire storyline in the books is basically about resolving her dilemnas regarding her relationships with both Yennefer and Geralt. In the end Triss very clearly accepts that Geralt and Yennefer belong together and she makes the choice to move on, to put her friendship with Yen above the lodge and above her "love" for Geralt (whether or not she really loves him or just has a crush on him is another debate). In the end Yennefer sacrifices herself trying to save Geralt while Triss just stands there watching her because 1) her love for Geralt is not worth such a sacrifice and 2) she doesn't belong there. So I think whatever was between Triss and Geralt gets as much closure as it can, way more than the Fringilla thing.

If that is really so, why does she want to follow Geralt to the island of Avalon at the end, instead of moving on? Why would Yennefer be jealous without reason?

In the end Yennefer sacrifices herself trying to save Geralt while Triss just stands there watching her because 1) her love for Geralt is not worth such a sacrifice and 2) she doesn't belong there.

I do not recall that being given as an explanation, it is only your interpretation. It could also be that she is exhausted and just does not have the strength left to do anything (Yennefer is the older and more powerful sorceress to begin with), and she knows that Geralt cannot be saved at that point. The scene does not really prove how she relates to him. By the way, Ciri is also just standing there until after the witcher and Yennefer are already dead. I guess that means she does not care about them?

Edit:

Because nobody ever gets jealous without reason right? Especially with the history Yen and Triss have.

If it was without reason, Triss could have simply told so. Her lines are not exactly convincing for someone who presumably already "let go". Besides, why put this stuff into Yennefer's final (and thus important) conversation before the pogrom and her "death" in the first place, if it was just pointless filler? And why is Fringilla Vigo not in the finale instead if she really was so much more important?

Well that's the whole point actually, Yen doesn't have the strength to save Geralt either and I'm pretty sure at least part of her knows that Geralt cannot be saved too yet she tries and ends up dying in the process. And I did not say that Triss didn't care about Geralt. I said she doesn't love him the way Yen does and so she is willing to let him go.

Not loving him exactly the same way as Yennefer does does not imply not loving him at all, nor willing to let him go. What percentage of real people would sacrifice their own lives in an attempt to save their lovers, knowing already that they will not succeed anyway?

 

[zappy3]

Why would Yennefer be jealous without reason?

Because nobody ever gets jealous without reason right? Especially with the history Yen and Triss have.

I do not recall that being given as an explanation, it is only your interpretation. It could also be that she is exhausted and just does not have the strength left to do anything (Yennefer is the older and more powerful sorceress to begin with), and she knows that Geralt cannot be saved at that point. The scene does not really prove how she relates to him. By the way, Ciri is also just standing there until after the witcher and Yennefer are already dead. I guess that means she does not care about them?

Well that's the whole point actually, Yen doesn't have the strength to save Geralt either and I'm pretty sure at least part of her knows that Geralt cannot be saved too yet she tries and ends up dying in the process. And I did not say that Triss didn't care about Geralt. I said she doesn't love him the way Yen does and so she is willing to let him go.

 

[Samiel27]

Can we get back to the topic of the page. The truth is that Triss isn't as important in the books as in the game--will she be in show--we don't know. If it's the short stories then I don't think she'll be in it.

The more important aspects should be focused on portraying the main characters correctly. Capturing the themes and mannerisms of the characters will be more important than having a "love triangle" in the show.

 

[Rawls]

I think Triss will be very lucky to even get a mention in the adaptaition of the first two books.

The reason I think it's important is the moment were Geralt see's her name in Something More as the 14th on the Hill. I feel like for that moment to pay off at its best, you have to have had some investment in Triss's character so Geralt has both loss and relief in that moment since Yen's name isn't on the list. Getting her in an episode in season one is the best way to have that moment pay off at its best.

Can we get back to the topic of the page. The truth is that Triss isn't as important in the books as in the game--will she be in show--we don't know. If it's the short stories then I don't think she'll be in it.

As long as we're talking about Triss and Yen regarding possibilities for the netflix show ... it's on topic. But I do agree that we need to not get too deep into a discussion of book histories with Triss and Yen as there are better threads for that. So please everyone ... keep the discussion focused on the netflix series.

 

[Gilthoniel]

I feel like for that moment to pay off at its best, you have to have had some investment in Triss's character so Geralt has both loss and relief in that moment since Yen's name isn't on the list

Geralt just mentioned her smile and that he liked her that's all, he also mentioned he slept with Coral when seeing her name on the obelisk. If the Netflix series will be based on short stories I fail to see why they has to show investment in the Triss's character when the short story books only mention her briefly.

 

[Rawls]

Geralt just mentioned her smile and that he liked her that's all, he also mentioned he slept with Coral when seeing her name on the obelisk. If the Netflix series will be based on short stories I fail to see why they has to show investment in the Triss's character when the short story books only mention her briefly.

In Something More you're correct ... what I'm saying is the moment will have more impact if there is investment in one of the characters who supposedly died there. There is also an obvious history between Geralt, Yen and Triss that is discussed rather than shown in the books. Following the "show don't tell" rule of fiction, it would make sense to have one episode dedicated to that incident. It gives you the history for future seasons (if there are any) without having to have it explained via expositionary dialogue (remember in a TV show you likely won't hear the characters' thoughts) + it makes for an additional impactful moment in the season finale. I'm not saying it has to be that way or it will be awful, I just thought it was important enough to tell early on and put it in my list. Feel free to propose your own ideas regarding your hopes for the series.

 

[Golden_Phoenix]

Please no. I'm really excited by this announcement and will purchase a subscription to Netflix for this one series alone, but if they chose Idris Elba to play as Geralt, I would immediately lose all interest in the show. Geralt was written as a white male and that's the type of person who should be casted for him. Having Idris as Geralt would be like having an Asian woman play as Yen. It just doesn't look right or work.

Don't worry, it's just me being sarcastic. Didn't you heard of what happened to Dark Tower adaptation? Actually, I'd love to see someone like Mads Mikkelsen or Viggo Mortensen to play Geralt.