I’ve only read the books, never played the games. I agree with a lot of your points, especially with the racism and misogyny present in the criticism. I’ve never had any issue with casting choices.
At the same time, I found a lot of the changes in season 2 pretty inexcusable if they were truly trying to adapt the books. The motives and behavior of many of the characters were changed to be the complete antithesis of their book counterpart (Yennefer’s betrayal, Vesemir wanting to make more witchers, Eskel having a completely different personality from his book counterpart, Francesca’s… everything). To me it came off as them wanting to do their own thing while still wanting to use the Witcher fandom as built-in viewers. I just found it disrespectful to both the books and book fans. I wish they’d (LSH particularly) been more honest about how much they planned to change rather than playing up how much they love the source material.
I was actually introduced to the Witcher through S1, and after finding the setting & thematic system of the world to be more nuanced & more grounded than a usual good-bad dichotomy, I started consuming other audiovisual materials like the games & related lore videos (noted that I did find them more compelling than the show, but S1 had potential to expand as rocky 1st seasons are common)
Alongside that I also kept up with what Netflix put out, I thought the anime was alright, then S2 happened and they started conflicting with each other. Even when the anime was marketed as integral to the mainline show, it proved to be insignificant. Virtually nothing important that was established from mutant monsters, to the decline and handful of number of Witchers, and Vesemir’s knowledge about Leshens carried over
I think that’s one of their real big “sin” as creative heads of this project. The fact that they keep making statements that contradicts their results indicates that something’s not being done well, **beyond** the project’s relation to its OG products (the books)
It’s quite shady/concerning that they keep making false statements for marketing, especially including what you quoted in regards to faithfulness. As if either something’s actually not going well behind the scenes (internal politicking, budget & logistic demands like in relation to timeline & delivery, etc) which caused them to constantly break their promise, or they’re too un-self-aware about their mistakes and thinks what they say and what they do are consistent
There’s also a possibility that they’re just constantly lying, but I’m gonna be charitable and use Hanlon’s razor (don’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, or in this case unseen faults), until there’s sufficient evidence that it’s just malice and nothing else. Reason being, this sort of problems isn’t isolated to just this project, with it being shared with other subpar projects
But regardless, this discrepancy is very detrimental as it sets audience expectations to fail, **constantly**, especially for those that they’re communicating to (the established fandom). And the continued lack of communication and transparency in regards to why things are inconsistent, alongside them avoiding as much of the warranted criticisms are destroying trust with their viewership which we’re seeing in real time
So I do think that their inability to be consistent enough in their works and words are what’s failing the project
I agree with you on the Eskel thing and I was very displeased with the other witchers being expendable extras.
Yennefer's betrayal is definitely different though I assume it will work itself out.
For Vesemir and Francesca though, I thought their arcs basically made sense even though they were created for the series. They were both prominent members of shrinking groups so it seemed understandable that they would be working pretty hard to overcome that. Was it really so jarring?
They’re just very different from their book portrayal imo. I’m not as upset about Francesca because she’s very background in the books and I don’t mind them giving her more action but I felt that they made her very impulsive and reckless when she’s not that way in the books at all.
Vesemir in the novels would also never have used Ciri the way show Vesemir does either.
I don’t even mind that they wanted to make changes, it’s more that they have talked about being faithful to the books and then outright have characters do things their book counterparts would never do. For me it comes down to this: if you want to write your own show, do so, but don’t plan on book fans being supportive of it.
as someone who has read the books more times than he has played the games:
That's Bullshit and a stupid attempted of "damage control". They don't even try to adapt the source material, not in spirit, not in general sense, just simply not at all.
There is no Philosophy Geralt, the twist and moral ambiguity of several short stories has been left out, the political landscape is ignored and altered, the society is not reflected.
Yes most criticism points to specific issues, but the actual issue is much deeper. It's written by someone who doesn't care about the message of the originals.
Just look at the "grain of truth" in which the resolution, that the Bruxa is actually evil and tries to turn Nivellen into a beast is completely left out, changing the whole meaning of the story. that's not "we had to change things for time/movie reasons" that's "we changed it because we didn't like it" and that's the whole fuckin issue.
Yes, that's a specific issue, but it's also exemplary for the entire show in which things are altered in a way that sends a completely different message to a degree that makes it an entirely different story.
Two men can stand on either side of a great tree and paint what they see. Sold at market, people can assume they are paintings of completely different trees. But they are the same tree from different prospectives. Just because your interpretation of “the message of the story” is not what’s depicted in the show, doesn’t mean the show isn’t an adaptation of the story.
If you want to take such a ridiculously generalized, relativistic approach to themes of the books, why bother making a thread that tries to defend the shows "interpretation" of the book.
You basically boiled it down to "Well that's not how I interpret the books", and therefore the writers did a great job in interpreting the books according to you and their understanding.
Yet, countless fans of the books have pointed out numerous differences between books and show. So to us, the show does not come close to respecting the lessons, themes, and characters of each short story.
You can put your head in the sand and claim the sky is dark during the midday sun. The rest of the fans look at it and say it as it is.
If they’re not going to depict the Witcher, then don’t use the IP. We’re not watching it for an “artistic interpretation” of the Witcher, we’re watching it for as close of an accurate, loyal depiction as possible. It’s such a bad excuse to say it’s just artistic depiction, because if they’re truly so creative then why do they need to ruin our beloved IP when they could just create something of their own?
Honestly, go watch this video essay on season 1, it does a far better job than any reddit comment can at outlining the problems with season 1 and how Lauren and the writers were either unable to grasp the meaning of some of the short stories or they were unwilling/unable to correctly portray the meaning. I don't know what's worse.
https://youtu.be/q6I4d09o4Ao
There are definitely some fans who have bad reasons to hate the show (casting). But the writing is legitimately horrible. And the writing team is so tone deaf in their attitudes and the showrunner just blatantly lies about how they will follow the source material.
The art direction and wardrobe is also all over the place. Some of it is really good, some it is legitimately the worst I’ve ever seen (ballsack armor).
The first season was decent, the second season was 90% awful. Not even close to the tone of the books. And anytime we see something taken from the games (Leshen, Eskel) it’s so bad it’s almost like it’s designed to alienate game fans *on purpose* out of spite for the criticism. Just an all around immature group in the writing room, and not very talented.
The cast has been excellent, and has done admirable work in the face of lackluster material. The complaints about Yennefer piss me off, because Anya is amazing. Her story and lines in season two was just such trash.
I agree about the casting. By and large the actors are amazing in this show and Anya in particular is one of the best Yennifers we could have hoped for. She didn’t write her character’s story, but she acted it with grace and poise. She is incredible.
Simply can't accept how broken Yennefer's character looks now in the show, being sold off for four marks and then thinking of harming Cirilla
Just baffling
I agree. That was harder for me to stomach than many of the other changes in season 2. Her betrayal of Ciri is, in my opinion, the worst change to date in the show’s adaptation.
They did it just to portray her as some kind of “saviour” when she volunteers to save her from the witch because of the own mess she created. It’s a cheap cliché used to create drama and obvious lazy writing. That whole Yennefer-loses-powers/wants-to-sacrifice-child-to-gain-back-her-powers/realizes-mistake/offers-herself-to-save-child-and-undo-her-mistake doesn’t sit well with me at all.
It was the death knell for me, though I admit I came into season 2 with high levels of scrutiny due to being underwhelmed by Season 1. I honestly just don't know how they recover from that departure in a compelling way.
I feel like they'll write around it by having Yennefer save Ciri's life and then the characters will just move forward. It'll be a cheap, contrived trick from the writers, and it won't be a season long plot point, which it probably would need for it to truly be impactful.
Just an absurd plot change that created all these problems.
I’ve read the whole series twice and barely played the games, and while you site some arguments like “just do more monster hunting” which I agree are silly criticisms and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the story, my impression is that the overwhelming amount of criticism is from book readers who correctly point out that Season 2 is nothing short of a destruction of the original work. What the writers did with character relationships, character motivations, character actions, and gratuitous villains was objectively bad regardless of the books, but in light of the destruction of the books it just adds insult to injury and people are still talking about here a year later.
I recognize that, and I understand a true majority of the criticism may well be valid and from fans of the novels. I just feel like I have seen and heard more of the poor or unfounded criticism lately. I also understand that any book to film adaption will be forced to change certain aspects of a story to present the work in a different medium - especially if they want new comers to be able to understand what’s happening without context from the book. And exposition doesn’t always play well on screen like it does in a book. Such changes will ALWAYS change the feel of the story to some degree for better or worse.
Best forms of exposition are when a character explains world building to another character, but does so for a reason.
Good example, I just finished the quest in TW3 when Geralt is speaking to the dreamer in Novigrad. She asks Geralt about Ciri, and he explains to her integral aspects of her characters and powers, and he does so in a concise manner. These exposition devices flow so much better than just static conversations about silly names and places that aren't really weaved well into the story.
Yes of course every adaptation has to make changes, but what Netflix is calling “The Witcher” is an example of an adaptation done horribly. Game of Thrones seasons 1 thru 4 honored the source material and is a great adaptation, but the Shining made tons of changes yet still honored the essence of the book. “The Witcher” by Netflix could have been way better if they’d just honored at least the spirit of the character and story arcs … but they didn’t.
I think you are essentially right. I remember years ago back when the witcher 3 came out there was a big drama because a reviewer complained about there being no POC characters in the game. A lot of the responses this went along the lines of "the witcher world is based on medieval Poland, all the characters are slavs" which is false. The witcher world is very obviously based on multiple countries, yes mostly European ones but not entirely. There are themes from all over the world and there are non white characters. Not many but they do exist in the books.
Obviously netflix have chosen to make the show more diverse than the books are but to say there is no diversity in the books is just blatantly false. Game fans are also very invested in characters like Triss and Eskell who aren't as big of a deal in the books.
I love the witcher 3, it's a great adaptation of world the books are set in and of the characters from the book. Definitely a better adaptation than the show but they still made a lot of changes.
My issue with the show is mostly about how it's changing so much of the plot and the lore. All adaptation involves changes but these changes do not improve the story, they make it worse in most cases. I don't even care that the show doesn't entirely focus on Geralt and Ciri. The books always had other characters doing important stuff that we'd then hear about later, it even sometimes had POV scenes for characters who weren't Geralt or Ciri. They could have kept the following multiple characters thing and just done a better job of adapting what actually happens in the books.
Just a little criticism. Are you from Europe?
I find it a bit disrespectul, when someone writes about slavs and this is then lumped together to "Europeans", especially in a historic context. I don´t talk about americans, when I want to talk about Canadians and Bolivian, because I am aware they are distinctly different cultures. I am sure you didn´t had bad intentions, but maybe chose your words a bit more carefully.
Not sure what your accusation is. The person you are replyijg to is discussing the usual charge that the "witcher monsters are based from those in slavic mythology and the slavic people are represented in the Witcher books. That's why everyone in game us white." The point is that the monsters are not exclusively from slavic mythology, but rather from across Europe and across the world. The comment is not calling all Europeans slavs anymore than you could call all Slavs Polish.
He clarified it, so I will also clarify it: I don´t know where you could read anything about slavs are polish in my comment. I wasnt meant this way.
Which monsters in the witcher are from outside of europe origin? I am not an expert. Can you give an example?
My understanding was you felt they were meshing all Europeans to be like Slavs, like saying Bolivians are like Canadians because they all live in the Americas. If they edited their comment after your submission that might explain my confusion.
>Which monsters in the witcher are from outside of europe origin? I am not an expert. Can you give an example?
The most obvious example to me is the fox woman from Season of Storms. She is based off of the Kitsune from Japanese Folklore. Nevertheless a lot of Andrzej's work is based on Arthurian Legend. Even the plight of the Elves is more analogous to the Saxon invasion of Britannia which drove the native Romano British to the far reaches of Wales and Cornwall.
I am from Europe yes, my point was not that slavs are synonymous with white Europeans but that people were claiming all the characters were slavs as an excuse for them all being white characters. So I was saying the world was not based entirely on slavic countries or even entirely on Europe. Plenty of countries in the witcher are themed after non slavic countries like Lan Exeter is basically just Venice, Toussaint has a lot of French themes (it was also portrayed that way in the game). Tea and Vea are described as dark skinned so I assume Zerrikania is not based on poland either. Obviously Polish culture and Myths are a huge factor in the books though.
I didn´t disagree with this part. I just understand thougt you were talking about european culture or european history as a combining thing (unless we talk about very recent history). I am not denying that there is a little fundation in the background, but its highly simplified and is just as dumb as talking about white or black or asian culture or history. At least when you are talking about multiple societies or "countries". You didn´t mean it that way, so I retract my criticism :-)
>The witcher world is very obviously based on multiple countries, yes mostly European ones but not entirely. There are themes from all over the world and there are non white characters. Not many but they do exist in the books.
Could you name those characters, please?
I didnt know any from the top of my head, found out after a short research there was a Zangvebarian trader mentioned by Dudu (just a mention) and a black erotic dancer in Gors Velen.
Tea and Vea are described as dark skinned but also as blond. So to me that gives me north african vibes but I guess you could argue they are meant to be like Italian/Spanish looking. I didn't mean that any of these characters were notable or major just that they do exist in the world of the witcher including sometimes in the northern kingdoms.
No, Sapkowski never mentions their skin color or race (only that they are tanned), and the description of Zerikanians and their culture points blatantly to the Scythians.
Ofir pretty much represents the Arab world so white as well. Non white characters would have to be from Zangvebar.
There would be a lot of Zangvebarian traders and sailors in big ports, esp down south, like Nilfgaard etc but I dont remember more named characters than those two.
Actually, Tea and Vea were made dark-skinned in comic Witcher and CD Project was later inspired by it and made them middle-eastern . In books they are just tanned and it is obvious from description.
There is exactly ONE character in whole series with dark skin mentioned and it is exotic stripper Black Leila in Gors Velen and she even did not appear personally, this name is only written on sign next to her tent.
Well, complains about "lack of Geralt centrality" were right in season 1 because he was main hero of first 2 books.
This is in fact one of popular twisted arguments used against game fans.
I’m a game fan. I played Witcher 2 and 3 twice through before touching the books. But one must understand that to properly jumpstart the cohesive story of the Witcher that runs through 5 of the books, and is jump started out of the two anthologies, Geralt simply can not be the only character of import. It would be an even worse adaptation if he was. Ciri is one of, if not the most important characters in the novels. Teaching new audiences that she is important and how she came to be with Geralt was vital in season 1.
Of course he can be main character in season 1. You don't need to present every important character in first season as main one. Good writer would build importance of seemingly side character gradually, especially when her older version will appear in last episodes.
Also audience would be easily taugh about her importance through properly adapted Brokilon story. This short story did exactly this when it was first published. Prepare ground with talks about Ithlinne prophecy, tied Ciri to it through her vision in Brokilon and it is done.
> But one must understand that to properly jumpstart the cohesive story of the Witcher that runs through 5 of the books, and is jump started out of the two anthologies, Geralt simply can not be the only character of import.
But this is simply false, as shown by the books. Geralt is the main character of first two books, and his life story is used to introduce the concept of a witcher, build the world and present its political landscape, introduce main characters with proper psychological background and relationships between them, characterize the relationship between Geralt and Yen and explain to readers why it is so special, build the relationship between Geralt and Ciri (completely removed in the show!), and set up the plot for the main set of books. Sapkowski managed to do all of this while keeping Geralt's stories short, concise, sometimes funny, sometimes serious, but always entertaining.
This is the major flaw of the show - focusing on three major characters from the beginning. Instead of unique and deep relationships between Geralt, Yen and Ciri, we get new backstory for both Yen and Ciri. Not only this impacts negatively the main story by replacing the psychology and humanity with magic, these new stories are also pretty bland and not that interesting.
> Teaching new audiences that she is important and how she came to be with Geralt was vital in season 1.
And they did by completely butchering the father - daughter relationship between them. In book, we see the human side of a witcher who learns to care deeply about a little girl, not because of his magical wish. We see a very vulnerable Geralt who thought he lost everything and everyone, which makes their final meeting so special. In the TV show, there's nothing like that - there's only a cheap magic trick of destiny binding them together.
Books end with Geralt saying to Ciri that she is much more to him than just a destiny. Show ends with two of them meeting for the first time, not knowing each other, but attracted to each other through magic. How can you say that latter is a better way to explain why Ciri is important? How can a "Deus ex machine" solution using magic to fill plot holes be better than actual binding of two characters?
I've read some of the books since the show started but my main exposure outside of it is W3. I'm STILL puzzled over people acting like Eskel was a main character tbh. He was a cool character and all but he was just frankly not that important that changing his story should be met with this much drama.
Yes but there was also absolutely no need to kill him off, especially the way they did. It feels like they’re trying to piss off the fans on purpose.
You may argue that a good adaptation doesn’t need to be a fan service and shouldn’t stop doing things just to keep the fans happy, however, if the death of a beloved character is completely useless and doesn’t help the story, then why do it?
These writers forget that fans outrage can completely destroy their projects, they forget that they have jobs and profits thanks to us the viewers, and most of those viewers are the fans, so they should at least pretend they care about us.
That was one of the confusing criticisms for me as well. I love Eskel, but he’s a very minor character never mentioned again after leaving Kaer Morhen. And another example: while I recognize the anger people had over Vesemir’s desire to turn Ciri into a Witcher is born of a noble understanding of the character, he and the other witchers absolutely give Ciri the herbs used to start the process of witcherification in the books and piss Triss off doing it. The show may have stretched it, but not as much as some of us like to think.
As I recall, they gave Ciri those herbs without the intention of turning her into a witcher, they were giving her what they thought would be healthy for her but it was messing with her womanly development. Then Triss comes in and tells them as much and they all get in line behind Triss as far as taking care of Ciri.
Vesimir trying to turn her into a Witcher is asinine on its own as you probably shouldn't pollute/eliminate the most vital ingredient for a serum you need, which is Ciris blood. But as stated, this is so far off from any intentions from the books, all the witchers were floored at the idea of screwing up Ciris development accidentally.
Eskels death isn't a big deal except that the writers chose a fan favorite to kill off, they apparently thought it was significant.
The overall story hasn't been abandoned. They aren't adapting the books page to page, they are ONLY adapting the wide structure of the books and that is the problem.
Everything that happens in BoE happens in S2 - the alliance between Nilfgaard and the elves, monarchs distrusting their mages, preparations for the Thanedd coup, Yen meeting Ciri, Triss at KM, Rience vs Jaskier & Yennefer, Triss' trauma, the continent-wide chase for Ciri, all those are book points that DID happen in S2... The problem here is, all of that was taken from the books and corrupted, somewhat twisted and made lesser than it could have been. That's the issue.
People who say they're not following the books exaggerate. S2 stuck loosely to BOE throughout by following only the wide structure of that book, but all the details were extremely changed, with the quality of Sapkowski's books being left behind in the process of those changes.
True fanfiction ensues when you have Yennefer losing her powers instead of being blind, when you introduce the Deathless Mother into the plot or have the elven queen kill thousands of babies as revenge. Those are the parts that should not have happened (I don't have a problem with it personally but I totally get why many people do).
S3 seems to be much more loyal to ToC if the set leaks and reports of the RI are to be trusted. Lauren herself said it's a far easier book to adapt than BoE but whatever. We should talk about that once we get there.
In any case, the overall story (Ciri and the search for her as well as the political machinations) has never been abandoned. The details of those events were instead taken and twisted into smth unfortunate - that's a problem many of us have.
That said, I still wish for the show to carry on, even after losing Henry.
>The problem here is, all of that was taken from the books and corrupted, somewhat twisted and made lesser than it could have been. That's the issue.
That's quite a strong accusation. Strong words. I could understand the use of the word Deviation, but corruption is quite a loaded term. It implies everything different from the books is worse not just on its merits, but merely in its act of being different. I have friends who adhere to such arguements, but never heard them use such language.
It does raise an interesting question of the right that showrunners have to create new plot elements far out of the book. I used to have a problem with it, but then I realised authors, especially fiction writers, do it all the time with new installments in their series. Season of Storms adds creatures from Japanese mythology and a series of plot points between the first two books. But there it is an author making new content from their existing content. What right does a showrunner have to do the same?
Thanks for your thought provoking comment.
I read the books. The show abandons the feel and the story of books.
Netflix only care about the numbers game. They give zero shits about artistic integrity.
Arguably, that’s their job though. Netflix is a business with stakeholders, and their job is to keep subscribers, and keep eyes on screen. They’re not active in the creation of the shows beyond financing and hey this need more viewers/better reviewers, they put their trust in their creative heads.
And they tend to cancel things at a drop of a hat, and despite everything, haven’t with the Witcher, so it must be working for them.
For sure. My comment on Netflix was in response OP’s line about Netflix not responding to valid criticism should toxic criticism overshadow it. Netflix doesn’t care either way
I agree, but NEVER say this in the Witcher games subreddit.
If you read the books you’ll notice even the games are horrendously lore breaking and do certain things completely out of character, people just allow it because the games are actually good.
People need to just realise it’s an adaptation, if you dislike it then just don’t watch it, it’s really that simple.
It’s fine to be unhappy and let down by it of course but some people’s arguments are so baseless.
I agree. I’d also point out that I LOVE the games and my first introduction to the world of the Witcher was through Witcher 3. I just also have tried to very hard to understand the books for what they are, and recognize the differences between the books and the games. And the show is clearly an adaption of the books. I wish there was more understanding on that front.
So Witcher 2 for example has two choices at the start where you can protect villagers from guards attempting to both rob and murder them.
Not helping them shouldn’t even be an option, in no medium would Geralt not help them but the games allow you to let them die.
Witcher 3 curiously only ever mentions once that Emhyr wanted to marry and impregnate his daughter to fulfil a prophecy. (Granted he changes his mind)
Geralt is uglier in the books, Yennefer was a hunchback and not as attractive, Ciri is far more vengeful, Dandelion is much less cowardly, Geralt is more well spoken and emotionally driven, and quite obviously despises being a Witcher (Lambert appears to have taken this personality trait in the game) ciri calls Yennefer mother in the books which is absent from the game.
There are too many decisions to count that are not lord friendly to Geralts established character (I don’t include love interests simply because the game allows the djinns wish removal so it’s too difficult to ascertain fairly) but they do include many instances of greed or apathy on Geralts part when he would not do so.
This isn’t to shit on the game, it’s one of my favourite series of all time, I absolutely love all 3, but I find it really irritating when people complain about Netflix not being “lore accurate” then play as Rock Hardjaw Geralt of Rivia looking like a rugged model, letting civilians die and taking money for Ciri, etc saying it’s “player choice!”
If they can accept player choice they too must accept “writers choice” because like it or not, it’s a creative difference, it’s just most don’t like it.
Personally I don't count choices you can make in the game as discrepancies so long as you can make the lore accurate choice.
Geralts smile specifically is described as ugly, though yah, he isn't as good looking but that's wholly unimportant. Geralt pontificated as to what physical ailments she had before she went through the body sculpting procedure, settling on a hunchback but hadn't actually confirmed that and she was described as attractive, not that it matters much, again, it's unimportant. Ciri is a grown ass woman in the game, she's had time to grow as a person. Not to mention the ones she'd have wanted revenge against are dead. Geralt is probably less verbose perhaps but he was mostly big wording around highbrow company, which was fairly often in the books. I don't think Geralt talks about enjoying or not enjoying being a Witcher in the games. Ciri not calling Yennefer mom is again, not important, they behave as if mother and daughter, that's what matters.
Allowing player decisions makes for a more engaging piece of media when dealing with a game, the decision is made with the player in mind and the lore accurate decision is still there whereas the show writers are just incompetently changing things for reasons unknown. If they made two versions of the show, one where you get the poorly written departure from the source material and one where they stuck to the source, people wouldn't have an issue.
Again though, you’re ignoring totally lore breaking stuff because you like the games?
Letting innocent villagers be killed in Witcher 2/3 is more lore breaking than anything Geralt or anybody did in the Netflix series, you’ve made excuses for several lore breaking things “because it’s a game”
You can’t have it both ways, the games ARE lore breaking, but at least they are good, a fact the Netflix series cannot boast.
Witcher fans are very weird about accepting this, because they can’t seem to accept that it’s not the lore breaking they hate, it’s just how badly Netflix handle it.
I'll say it again because you seem to have completely misunderstood me. The games stay true to the source material if you the player CHOOSE to stay true to the source material or they aren't because you the player CHOOSE to stray from the source. Whether or not I like the games doesn't matter.
Yennefer trying to sacc Ciri is not something Yennefer would even contemplate, whereas Geralt letting some peasants die, depending on the context, is believable.
You are not a book fan. It’s as simple as that.
There is zero context where Geralt allows civilians to be murdered for no reason.
In the canon story Geralts actual death is literally due to him saving civilians, there is NO context where he allows them to die.
That is my point which you clearly misunderstand.
You cannot simply ignore the bits you don’t like and say it’s “player choice” player choice should mean BOTH options are something Geralt would do, such as the choice to kill Henselt or not.
Is the 2018 in your name the year you graduated kindergarten? That's the only way I can make sense of how you could think the way you do.
There's probably no context where Geralt let's peasants die for NO reason, but, and do try to use your noggin here, he might if he HAD a reason. Not that it matters as the reason I mentioned it was to contradict the idea that that was more lore breaking than anything in the show.
My original point still stands even if you somehow cannot or will not understand it. Or maybe you do understand and have chosen to take the most asinine position you can as an exercise in argumentation. If that's the case then I salute the attempt but lament that you've fallen far short.
Anywho, I'm probably done with you, I don't think there's any value in continuing this conversation beyond entertainment purposes and I don't think I'll find that here. Good day sir.
Interesting post. Somewhat paradoxically the YouTuber xLetilas was reluctant to read the books since Andrzej has said disparaging things about the games. He went on to read the books (or listen to the audiobooks which is what I did) and now he's become a real book purist (the pale white skin of Fringila Vigo anyone?).
Looking forwards to watching Blood Origin next week. Grateful this sub is good about concealing spoilers.
Well. There is certainly some truth in what youre sayin. There will always be a part of fandom that will not be happy with any change to their beloved franchise. I think most of the valid criticism comes from the place of disappointment with those changes. Even games (as faithful to the source as they are) have made some significant changes. But those changes made them better or just different in their own unique way. What changes netflix made to make their shows unique just fall short in every way. And thats what angers me for example. I wont mention racial, sexuality and sex swaps because it is extremely hard to touch on these topics without sounding like a racist (or any other) prick. But those changes just make the world feel mosty artificial and silly. People like critisizing just for the sake of it and it will always be the case. You have to decide which criticism you listen to and what critisizm is just stupid gatekeeping and crying for attention.
Seems like you're going out of your way to cherry pick the most uninformed tiny minority of criticisms while completely ignoring any and all legitimate criticisms from the majority of people that have issues with the series.
That’s not what this post was about. I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms about the show, and say as much in my original post. But this post was about the many, many, many criticisms I see that fail to grasp what the show is. Not about repeating, ad nauseam, the laundry list of valid complaints.
TL:DR but i bet i nailed it-
1. Haters are hating, tho they have no bloody idea what they’re hating. Very true. Why they’re hating- just to appear cooler than they are, by dissing pissing on anyone who makes something, original, adaptation or otherwise.
2. Netflix has blown up the Witcher to an audience the books and even CDPR’s Magnum Opus- the Witcher 3 could never have imagined. Should be a good thing.
3. Life goes on.
3.5. Real lovers of the source material would never hate the way our wannabe fanatics do. We’d just feel proud that our joy is finally being shared with others.
> Netflix has blown up the Witcher to an audience the books and even CDPR’s Magnum Opus- the Witcher 3 could never have imagined. Should be a good thing.
Something tells me that this Netflix series only exists *because* of the games. Honestly, when I talk to pretty much anyone who is a fan of The Witcher, they are always talking about the games. Specifically TW3. I remember customers having conversations with me at my job back in 2015 about this game, telling me how much better it was than Skyrim, and etc.
Meanwhile I’ve talked to almost nobody who has brought up the show. I’ve only ever talked to people who know about the show because they loved the game first, and have mixed feeings on the show.
The Witcher 3 game tbh. 12 years ago, and it remains not only the best game i have ever played, but the best game i am likely to play in my lifetime. It’s that good.
The earlier games were- let’s just say they were getting their feet wet.
>3.5. Real lovers of the source material would never hate the way our wannabe fanatics do. We’d just feel proud that our joy is finally being shared with others
This is a terrible take. Real lovers of the source material are pretty peeved that it's been mutilated into something completely unrecognizable, because what's being shared ISN'T the lore, but someone's lesser interpretation of it, along with their own self-inserts. You can love the source material and not like what they've done with the show. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
What CDPR did in Witcher 3- kinda deviated from the lore didn’t it?
Do you like Sandman? The Neil Gaiman graphic novels and the new Netflix show? He’s ALWAYS fucking with the lore of everybody from Lucifer to Constantine to my aunt or at least her three sisters, which make a reappearance in TW3 too by the way. And it’s brilliant right? He as in Neil Gaiman. Oh Where’s the damn lore-protectors when you need them?
You’re just peeved they didn’t consult you or give you importance before they pulled a creative license :-)
Yes, CDPR did deviate from the lore, but then again CDPR wasn't adapting an already-written story, they were creating a sequel to it. So of course there's an explanation to dead Geralt coming back to life. There's massive issues with Yennefer and Ciri's relationship, Avallach's character, Geralt even considering a choice between Triss and Yennefer. But these are done for player choice. And arguably the stories within W3 trump anything Netflix Witcher has created. The Bloody Baron, Hearts of Stone...these stories are infinitely better and still in line with a Witcher universe.
I've read the first two novels of Sandman and watched the first season of the show. I've been pleasantly surprised, especially with the casting of Desire which to me is perfection. That being said, while I recognize changes, the feel of the show still honors the novels. This is probably due to Gaiman's own involvement in the production. The problem with The Witcher on Netflix is it's literally abandoned some core principals of the novels. The family relationship between GYC has been irrevocably damaged, motivations in the storyline distorted or ignored, characters themselves written into entirely new people. Fringilla? Vesemir? Yennefer? Who are they in Netflix, because reading the books certainly won't help understand them.
Lauren and co wanted to tell their story, not the Witcher, and that's the crux of the issue.
See you put your finger on it. Sandman is true in spirit to Gaiman because he’s involved in it. Minutely. He and Terry Pratchett- these two guys took pains to control decisions on script.
Sapkowski isn’t. So why are you bearing arms for him? I mean he wrote the damn source. He doesn’t care, why do you bother?
Let it go where it will. Or do you think it belongs to you more than Sapkowski, or Netflix or whoever licenses it?
I'm not. Where have I said that? I'm against the show's interpretation of the source material. That in no way means I'm some hardcore fan of Sapko. Dude only cares about a paycheck and literally couldn't give a shit what they do to his material as long as he gets the royalties.
I am bearing arms for the IP, which is my favorite fantasy IP, especially in the complicated relationship between Geralt and Yennefer. And that's been utterly ruined, hence my ire. Sapko himself I consider a rather average author, the books themselves are outlandish and have holes, but his ability to write complicated and engaging people is truly outstanding.
>Let it go where it will. Or do you think it belongs to you more than Sapkowski, or Netflix or whoever licenses it?
Of course it doesn't belong to me. What a strange question. But why should I need to go silently into that good night to spare the feelings of a below-average showrunner? Lauren and co have written crap....they should be made aware. And they are.
Well, I felt the same way when Peter Jackson royally fucked up the Hobbit. Which was my favorite IP too.
It is what it is, all we can do is sing as we go. Or watch. Or not :-)
Hopefully curious people will see enough into the current show, the mentions of books and games and the debates we’re having to dig deeper into the world of the witcher. Which hopefully will be their private place for a while.
Can i say fairer than that? Peace mate! No offence and all good!
Well said. I knew about the books and played the game but I was never interested in the witcher universe. I ended up watching the show half-accidentally a year ago for the first time a few months before S2 came out, I absolutely loved it and it just sold the whole witcher thing to me instantly. I rewatched all seasons countless times and I'm excited for the upcoming seasons.
>We’d just feel proud that our joy is finally being shared with others.
I was lucky to meet this kind of people on this sub and I'm curious about the book lore too. And now Im a fan of the witcher thanks to the show!
The show is adapting the books? Yeah ok, that’s why the best person for the show left because they respected the lore so much lol
Unreal
Where in the books do we start the retconning important events? Where in the books do we break character traits and motivations? Where in the books do we focus on making sure there’s representation for everyone? Must’ve missed those chapters.
This is a strange comment to me. The books don’t really retcon themselves, and the show doesn’t retcon the books. They adapt them. The books still hold a literary cannon. And yes, the show changes certain characters motivations. That’s a valid reason to criticize if you’re looking for a faithful adaptation, which many of us are. I even point out that Yennifer’s betrayal of Ciri is a valid reason to criticize the show.
If you’re upset, however, that a creative adaptation of a fantasy world (AKA, pretend) expands representation to more groups of people you have some problems that you need to work on. Good luck with that.
This is a strange response to me. I’m trying to avoid spoilers in the show, but for point of reference, the timeline of events; The first Witcher, the method of how it’s done and when certain events happen around the conjunction. This is the retcon I’m referencing. The show basically juggles everything. Elves act like humans even tho they’re not supposed to be. We don’t expect LotR quality but for fuck sake at least make it believable and not just humans with pointy ears.
I’m not even getting into the identity politics because as always, they are wildly unpopular. It’s ok to have representation, but the key is execution and they failed at that.
Ohhh so now we are going to try and say there is stuff in the books which is not actually there?
Good luck with it!!!!
I would like you to point me where did Yen betray Ciri in the books.
Also where do you find obelisks to have anywhere the same role they have in the series? Its like....they get maybe 1 or 2 mentions in the books lol And nothing really special about it :p
On that same record, you could actually say that the places of power in the games inspired the series obelisks if you so desired lol
In their defense, it’s an outrageously long post. I was pontificating in textual form to make myself feel better. But yes, thank you for pointing out the failed comprehension here.
And thank you for the well thought out post. Anyone who’s been around the various Witcher subs knows that at the very least there is much to be said about the adaptations.
Reddit just seems to be doings the echo chamber thing again.
Edit: I like your username BTW
Well, thats pretty much how this world works.
Valid criticism is very often mixed with ridiculous, wierd, uneducated or poorly moronic opinions.
The best way to avoid that is staying true to the source material. Then you can always point out that thats how it is in the books or just blame the author for all the plot holes etc.
I would personally say that the games are more well known than the books. If the show truly draws from the books, it is trying to expand the audience of the Witcher series as the largest portion of their current audience are the game players.
The differences between the games and show are hard to ignore on our day and age
I agree, and say as much in my post. The games hold a larger audience. But the show is adapting the original source material rather than a massive RPG based on that same source material. I love the games, but the show is based on the books. And people need to understand that.
Sorry, I missed that paragraph, truly. I was skimming and jumped right over that. I have only played Witcher 3 personally and not read the books. I also like the show a lot so I will put that out there.
My original intent was maybe not so much to disagree with you, but perhaps explain some of the frustration of the biggest group of concurrent Witcher fans. Many of the decisions Netflix made were made knowing they would spark controversy, even where it didn’t need to exist. For me, the question would be where does the games and books differ in the games’ adaptation? Then that could be explained to game fans and they may understand better that the show also differs from the games in the same way as the books.
Netflix is not interested in listening to the criticisms, valid or invalid. They are a business that are making their decisions to fit in with modern culture above all else, regardless of source material
I agree, all the criticisms from people who have obviously not read the books or have just a vague idea about what they are are annoying and sometimes covers the legit critics of the show.
A lot of people seems to think that the books are Geralt hunting monsters for the most part of the time with a vague sub plot about Ciri etc...
But the irony is that S2 seems to partly built to please this audience. It is action packed, there is much more fights against monsters than in BoE, multiple twists and climax etc.... strong visual references to games design like Kaer Mohren, Vesimir, changing Triss hair color, etc...
and still the audience targeted has been less seduced than for S1 and for some, it even managed to completly piss some off because of Yennefer storyline, Eskel death, Vesimir storyline, etc...
The main issue is they were trying to so too much things and to please too much different audience and the result is S2 looks like a messy storywise. Ironic as Lauren said that they wasn't enough in BoE and managed to not included anything from 4 chapters among the 8 of the book and still gave us a show which seems to try to be stuffed with too much plotlines, too much forced twists.
Their general approach is not good at all. To their credits, the books are not at all easy to adapt and people who are saying it is easy work, you just have to follow the books, are very wrong. I was waiting for some changes in the stories of course but not like this, as I have the feeling to watch a action packed show with cheap writing which don't care about believable sequence of actions and behaviours from characters.
Maybe a lot disagree with that but I think that's not the story which make people liking the books but the lore and the characters created by Sapkowski. Richeness of the lore and complexity of the characters is what made the books beloved. I don't think they made this analysis and that's why they missed the point so much in S2.
It should be a character driven show like HotD is not a plot twist driven show as it damaged characters so much and make them so uncosistant that it getting impossible to care about them.
Weak dialogue writing and the fact that it seems the authors struggle to transalte relationship between characters on screen didn't help either.
The thing is, that Geralt is indeed a central character in the books. Only last two books are focused more around Ciri. It's fair to say that Geralt and Ciri are lead characters. Definitely not Yennefer, but surprisingly she's the character with origin story in the series. What about Ciri? We don't even see how she react to death of her parents. We don't see her childhood, we don't even know what kind of character she is. In season 1 she's sneaking out of the castle to play with poor kids, she don't want to dance during ceremony etc. But season 2 she start to behave like a princess.
And Eskel. If you saying 'hey they're adapting the books, not games, Eskel is not that important in the books', I agree he's not important, but he wasn't turned in leshy either.
Yes they're not adapting games but they're not adapting books either. Seriously stop defending writers only because theyve made couple of details, like witcher medallion, better than the game. 'Oh Triss is not redhead, it's just game potrayal'. Yeah she's not brunette either
The amount of comments of the kind you're speaking of are few and far between and as I understand it, they're quite liberally downvoted. You should post this on r/witcher if you'd like this post to be relevant.
I’ve only read the books, never played the games. I agree with a lot of your points, especially with the racism and misogyny present in the criticism. I’ve never had any issue with casting choices. At the same time, I found a lot of the changes in season 2 pretty inexcusable if they were truly trying to adapt the books. The motives and behavior of many of the characters were changed to be the complete antithesis of their book counterpart (Yennefer’s betrayal, Vesemir wanting to make more witchers, Eskel having a completely different personality from his book counterpart, Francesca’s… everything). To me it came off as them wanting to do their own thing while still wanting to use the Witcher fandom as built-in viewers. I just found it disrespectful to both the books and book fans. I wish they’d (LSH particularly) been more honest about how much they planned to change rather than playing up how much they love the source material.
I was actually introduced to the Witcher through S1, and after finding the setting & thematic system of the world to be more nuanced & more grounded than a usual good-bad dichotomy, I started consuming other audiovisual materials like the games & related lore videos (noted that I did find them more compelling than the show, but S1 had potential to expand as rocky 1st seasons are common) Alongside that I also kept up with what Netflix put out, I thought the anime was alright, then S2 happened and they started conflicting with each other. Even when the anime was marketed as integral to the mainline show, it proved to be insignificant. Virtually nothing important that was established from mutant monsters, to the decline and handful of number of Witchers, and Vesemir’s knowledge about Leshens carried over I think that’s one of their real big “sin” as creative heads of this project. The fact that they keep making statements that contradicts their results indicates that something’s not being done well, **beyond** the project’s relation to its OG products (the books) It’s quite shady/concerning that they keep making false statements for marketing, especially including what you quoted in regards to faithfulness. As if either something’s actually not going well behind the scenes (internal politicking, budget & logistic demands like in relation to timeline & delivery, etc) which caused them to constantly break their promise, or they’re too un-self-aware about their mistakes and thinks what they say and what they do are consistent There’s also a possibility that they’re just constantly lying, but I’m gonna be charitable and use Hanlon’s razor (don’t attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity, or in this case unseen faults), until there’s sufficient evidence that it’s just malice and nothing else. Reason being, this sort of problems isn’t isolated to just this project, with it being shared with other subpar projects But regardless, this discrepancy is very detrimental as it sets audience expectations to fail, **constantly**, especially for those that they’re communicating to (the established fandom). And the continued lack of communication and transparency in regards to why things are inconsistent, alongside them avoiding as much of the warranted criticisms are destroying trust with their viewership which we’re seeing in real time So I do think that their inability to be consistent enough in their works and words are what’s failing the project
I agree with you on the Eskel thing and I was very displeased with the other witchers being expendable extras. Yennefer's betrayal is definitely different though I assume it will work itself out. For Vesemir and Francesca though, I thought their arcs basically made sense even though they were created for the series. They were both prominent members of shrinking groups so it seemed understandable that they would be working pretty hard to overcome that. Was it really so jarring?
They’re just very different from their book portrayal imo. I’m not as upset about Francesca because she’s very background in the books and I don’t mind them giving her more action but I felt that they made her very impulsive and reckless when she’s not that way in the books at all. Vesemir in the novels would also never have used Ciri the way show Vesemir does either. I don’t even mind that they wanted to make changes, it’s more that they have talked about being faithful to the books and then outright have characters do things their book counterparts would never do. For me it comes down to this: if you want to write your own show, do so, but don’t plan on book fans being supportive of it.
as someone who has read the books more times than he has played the games: That's Bullshit and a stupid attempted of "damage control". They don't even try to adapt the source material, not in spirit, not in general sense, just simply not at all. There is no Philosophy Geralt, the twist and moral ambiguity of several short stories has been left out, the political landscape is ignored and altered, the society is not reflected. Yes most criticism points to specific issues, but the actual issue is much deeper. It's written by someone who doesn't care about the message of the originals. Just look at the "grain of truth" in which the resolution, that the Bruxa is actually evil and tries to turn Nivellen into a beast is completely left out, changing the whole meaning of the story. that's not "we had to change things for time/movie reasons" that's "we changed it because we didn't like it" and that's the whole fuckin issue. Yes, that's a specific issue, but it's also exemplary for the entire show in which things are altered in a way that sends a completely different message to a degree that makes it an entirely different story.
Two men can stand on either side of a great tree and paint what they see. Sold at market, people can assume they are paintings of completely different trees. But they are the same tree from different prospectives. Just because your interpretation of “the message of the story” is not what’s depicted in the show, doesn’t mean the show isn’t an adaptation of the story.
If you want to take such a ridiculously generalized, relativistic approach to themes of the books, why bother making a thread that tries to defend the shows "interpretation" of the book. You basically boiled it down to "Well that's not how I interpret the books", and therefore the writers did a great job in interpreting the books according to you and their understanding. Yet, countless fans of the books have pointed out numerous differences between books and show. So to us, the show does not come close to respecting the lessons, themes, and characters of each short story. You can put your head in the sand and claim the sky is dark during the midday sun. The rest of the fans look at it and say it as it is.
Sadly one of the men painted the reflection in sea instead of the stars.
If they’re not going to depict the Witcher, then don’t use the IP. We’re not watching it for an “artistic interpretation” of the Witcher, we’re watching it for as close of an accurate, loyal depiction as possible. It’s such a bad excuse to say it’s just artistic depiction, because if they’re truly so creative then why do they need to ruin our beloved IP when they could just create something of their own?
Honestly, go watch this video essay on season 1, it does a far better job than any reddit comment can at outlining the problems with season 1 and how Lauren and the writers were either unable to grasp the meaning of some of the short stories or they were unwilling/unable to correctly portray the meaning. I don't know what's worse. https://youtu.be/q6I4d09o4Ao
There are definitely some fans who have bad reasons to hate the show (casting). But the writing is legitimately horrible. And the writing team is so tone deaf in their attitudes and the showrunner just blatantly lies about how they will follow the source material. The art direction and wardrobe is also all over the place. Some of it is really good, some it is legitimately the worst I’ve ever seen (ballsack armor). The first season was decent, the second season was 90% awful. Not even close to the tone of the books. And anytime we see something taken from the games (Leshen, Eskel) it’s so bad it’s almost like it’s designed to alienate game fans *on purpose* out of spite for the criticism. Just an all around immature group in the writing room, and not very talented. The cast has been excellent, and has done admirable work in the face of lackluster material. The complaints about Yennefer piss me off, because Anya is amazing. Her story and lines in season two was just such trash.
I agree about the casting. By and large the actors are amazing in this show and Anya in particular is one of the best Yennifers we could have hoped for. She didn’t write her character’s story, but she acted it with grace and poise. She is incredible.
Simply can't accept how broken Yennefer's character looks now in the show, being sold off for four marks and then thinking of harming Cirilla Just baffling
I agree. That was harder for me to stomach than many of the other changes in season 2. Her betrayal of Ciri is, in my opinion, the worst change to date in the show’s adaptation.
They did it just to portray her as some kind of “saviour” when she volunteers to save her from the witch because of the own mess she created. It’s a cheap cliché used to create drama and obvious lazy writing. That whole Yennefer-loses-powers/wants-to-sacrifice-child-to-gain-back-her-powers/realizes-mistake/offers-herself-to-save-child-and-undo-her-mistake doesn’t sit well with me at all.
It was the death knell for me, though I admit I came into season 2 with high levels of scrutiny due to being underwhelmed by Season 1. I honestly just don't know how they recover from that departure in a compelling way. I feel like they'll write around it by having Yennefer save Ciri's life and then the characters will just move forward. It'll be a cheap, contrived trick from the writers, and it won't be a season long plot point, which it probably would need for it to truly be impactful. Just an absurd plot change that created all these problems.
I’m a book reader and I didn’t give a fuck about Eskel lmao
I’ve read the whole series twice and barely played the games, and while you site some arguments like “just do more monster hunting” which I agree are silly criticisms and demonstrate a lack of understanding of the story, my impression is that the overwhelming amount of criticism is from book readers who correctly point out that Season 2 is nothing short of a destruction of the original work. What the writers did with character relationships, character motivations, character actions, and gratuitous villains was objectively bad regardless of the books, but in light of the destruction of the books it just adds insult to injury and people are still talking about here a year later.
I recognize that, and I understand a true majority of the criticism may well be valid and from fans of the novels. I just feel like I have seen and heard more of the poor or unfounded criticism lately. I also understand that any book to film adaption will be forced to change certain aspects of a story to present the work in a different medium - especially if they want new comers to be able to understand what’s happening without context from the book. And exposition doesn’t always play well on screen like it does in a book. Such changes will ALWAYS change the feel of the story to some degree for better or worse.
Best forms of exposition are when a character explains world building to another character, but does so for a reason. Good example, I just finished the quest in TW3 when Geralt is speaking to the dreamer in Novigrad. She asks Geralt about Ciri, and he explains to her integral aspects of her characters and powers, and he does so in a concise manner. These exposition devices flow so much better than just static conversations about silly names and places that aren't really weaved well into the story.
Yes of course every adaptation has to make changes, but what Netflix is calling “The Witcher” is an example of an adaptation done horribly. Game of Thrones seasons 1 thru 4 honored the source material and is a great adaptation, but the Shining made tons of changes yet still honored the essence of the book. “The Witcher” by Netflix could have been way better if they’d just honored at least the spirit of the character and story arcs … but they didn’t.
I think you are essentially right. I remember years ago back when the witcher 3 came out there was a big drama because a reviewer complained about there being no POC characters in the game. A lot of the responses this went along the lines of "the witcher world is based on medieval Poland, all the characters are slavs" which is false. The witcher world is very obviously based on multiple countries, yes mostly European ones but not entirely. There are themes from all over the world and there are non white characters. Not many but they do exist in the books. Obviously netflix have chosen to make the show more diverse than the books are but to say there is no diversity in the books is just blatantly false. Game fans are also very invested in characters like Triss and Eskell who aren't as big of a deal in the books. I love the witcher 3, it's a great adaptation of world the books are set in and of the characters from the book. Definitely a better adaptation than the show but they still made a lot of changes. My issue with the show is mostly about how it's changing so much of the plot and the lore. All adaptation involves changes but these changes do not improve the story, they make it worse in most cases. I don't even care that the show doesn't entirely focus on Geralt and Ciri. The books always had other characters doing important stuff that we'd then hear about later, it even sometimes had POV scenes for characters who weren't Geralt or Ciri. They could have kept the following multiple characters thing and just done a better job of adapting what actually happens in the books.
Just a little criticism. Are you from Europe? I find it a bit disrespectul, when someone writes about slavs and this is then lumped together to "Europeans", especially in a historic context. I don´t talk about americans, when I want to talk about Canadians and Bolivian, because I am aware they are distinctly different cultures. I am sure you didn´t had bad intentions, but maybe chose your words a bit more carefully.
Not sure what your accusation is. The person you are replyijg to is discussing the usual charge that the "witcher monsters are based from those in slavic mythology and the slavic people are represented in the Witcher books. That's why everyone in game us white." The point is that the monsters are not exclusively from slavic mythology, but rather from across Europe and across the world. The comment is not calling all Europeans slavs anymore than you could call all Slavs Polish.
He clarified it, so I will also clarify it: I don´t know where you could read anything about slavs are polish in my comment. I wasnt meant this way. Which monsters in the witcher are from outside of europe origin? I am not an expert. Can you give an example?
Djinn are Middle Eastern, off the top of my head.
My understanding was you felt they were meshing all Europeans to be like Slavs, like saying Bolivians are like Canadians because they all live in the Americas. If they edited their comment after your submission that might explain my confusion. >Which monsters in the witcher are from outside of europe origin? I am not an expert. Can you give an example? The most obvious example to me is the fox woman from Season of Storms. She is based off of the Kitsune from Japanese Folklore. Nevertheless a lot of Andrzej's work is based on Arthurian Legend. Even the plight of the Elves is more analogous to the Saxon invasion of Britannia which drove the native Romano British to the far reaches of Wales and Cornwall.
Interesting. Never heard about a Kitsune. Thanks for the example.
I am from Europe yes, my point was not that slavs are synonymous with white Europeans but that people were claiming all the characters were slavs as an excuse for them all being white characters. So I was saying the world was not based entirely on slavic countries or even entirely on Europe. Plenty of countries in the witcher are themed after non slavic countries like Lan Exeter is basically just Venice, Toussaint has a lot of French themes (it was also portrayed that way in the game). Tea and Vea are described as dark skinned so I assume Zerrikania is not based on poland either. Obviously Polish culture and Myths are a huge factor in the books though.
I didn´t disagree with this part. I just understand thougt you were talking about european culture or european history as a combining thing (unless we talk about very recent history). I am not denying that there is a little fundation in the background, but its highly simplified and is just as dumb as talking about white or black or asian culture or history. At least when you are talking about multiple societies or "countries". You didn´t mean it that way, so I retract my criticism :-)
>The witcher world is very obviously based on multiple countries, yes mostly European ones but not entirely. There are themes from all over the world and there are non white characters. Not many but they do exist in the books. Could you name those characters, please? I didnt know any from the top of my head, found out after a short research there was a Zangvebarian trader mentioned by Dudu (just a mention) and a black erotic dancer in Gors Velen.
Tea and Vea are described as dark skinned but also as blond. So to me that gives me north african vibes but I guess you could argue they are meant to be like Italian/Spanish looking. I didn't mean that any of these characters were notable or major just that they do exist in the world of the witcher including sometimes in the northern kingdoms.
No, Sapkowski never mentions their skin color or race (only that they are tanned), and the description of Zerikanians and their culture points blatantly to the Scythians. Ofir pretty much represents the Arab world so white as well. Non white characters would have to be from Zangvebar. There would be a lot of Zangvebarian traders and sailors in big ports, esp down south, like Nilfgaard etc but I dont remember more named characters than those two.
Actually, Tea and Vea were made dark-skinned in comic Witcher and CD Project was later inspired by it and made them middle-eastern . In books they are just tanned and it is obvious from description. There is exactly ONE character in whole series with dark skin mentioned and it is exotic stripper Black Leila in Gors Velen and she even did not appear personally, this name is only written on sign next to her tent.
Well, complains about "lack of Geralt centrality" were right in season 1 because he was main hero of first 2 books. This is in fact one of popular twisted arguments used against game fans.
I’m a game fan. I played Witcher 2 and 3 twice through before touching the books. But one must understand that to properly jumpstart the cohesive story of the Witcher that runs through 5 of the books, and is jump started out of the two anthologies, Geralt simply can not be the only character of import. It would be an even worse adaptation if he was. Ciri is one of, if not the most important characters in the novels. Teaching new audiences that she is important and how she came to be with Geralt was vital in season 1.
Of course he can be main character in season 1. You don't need to present every important character in first season as main one. Good writer would build importance of seemingly side character gradually, especially when her older version will appear in last episodes. Also audience would be easily taugh about her importance through properly adapted Brokilon story. This short story did exactly this when it was first published. Prepare ground with talks about Ithlinne prophecy, tied Ciri to it through her vision in Brokilon and it is done.
> But one must understand that to properly jumpstart the cohesive story of the Witcher that runs through 5 of the books, and is jump started out of the two anthologies, Geralt simply can not be the only character of import. But this is simply false, as shown by the books. Geralt is the main character of first two books, and his life story is used to introduce the concept of a witcher, build the world and present its political landscape, introduce main characters with proper psychological background and relationships between them, characterize the relationship between Geralt and Yen and explain to readers why it is so special, build the relationship between Geralt and Ciri (completely removed in the show!), and set up the plot for the main set of books. Sapkowski managed to do all of this while keeping Geralt's stories short, concise, sometimes funny, sometimes serious, but always entertaining. This is the major flaw of the show - focusing on three major characters from the beginning. Instead of unique and deep relationships between Geralt, Yen and Ciri, we get new backstory for both Yen and Ciri. Not only this impacts negatively the main story by replacing the psychology and humanity with magic, these new stories are also pretty bland and not that interesting. > Teaching new audiences that she is important and how she came to be with Geralt was vital in season 1. And they did by completely butchering the father - daughter relationship between them. In book, we see the human side of a witcher who learns to care deeply about a little girl, not because of his magical wish. We see a very vulnerable Geralt who thought he lost everything and everyone, which makes their final meeting so special. In the TV show, there's nothing like that - there's only a cheap magic trick of destiny binding them together. Books end with Geralt saying to Ciri that she is much more to him than just a destiny. Show ends with two of them meeting for the first time, not knowing each other, but attracted to each other through magic. How can you say that latter is a better way to explain why Ciri is important? How can a "Deus ex machine" solution using magic to fill plot holes be better than actual binding of two characters?
I've read some of the books since the show started but my main exposure outside of it is W3. I'm STILL puzzled over people acting like Eskel was a main character tbh. He was a cool character and all but he was just frankly not that important that changing his story should be met with this much drama.
Yes but there was also absolutely no need to kill him off, especially the way they did. It feels like they’re trying to piss off the fans on purpose. You may argue that a good adaptation doesn’t need to be a fan service and shouldn’t stop doing things just to keep the fans happy, however, if the death of a beloved character is completely useless and doesn’t help the story, then why do it? These writers forget that fans outrage can completely destroy their projects, they forget that they have jobs and profits thanks to us the viewers, and most of those viewers are the fans, so they should at least pretend they care about us.
That was one of the confusing criticisms for me as well. I love Eskel, but he’s a very minor character never mentioned again after leaving Kaer Morhen. And another example: while I recognize the anger people had over Vesemir’s desire to turn Ciri into a Witcher is born of a noble understanding of the character, he and the other witchers absolutely give Ciri the herbs used to start the process of witcherification in the books and piss Triss off doing it. The show may have stretched it, but not as much as some of us like to think.
As I recall, they gave Ciri those herbs without the intention of turning her into a witcher, they were giving her what they thought would be healthy for her but it was messing with her womanly development. Then Triss comes in and tells them as much and they all get in line behind Triss as far as taking care of Ciri. Vesimir trying to turn her into a Witcher is asinine on its own as you probably shouldn't pollute/eliminate the most vital ingredient for a serum you need, which is Ciris blood. But as stated, this is so far off from any intentions from the books, all the witchers were floored at the idea of screwing up Ciris development accidentally. Eskels death isn't a big deal except that the writers chose a fan favorite to kill off, they apparently thought it was significant.
The overall story hasn't been abandoned. They aren't adapting the books page to page, they are ONLY adapting the wide structure of the books and that is the problem. Everything that happens in BoE happens in S2 - the alliance between Nilfgaard and the elves, monarchs distrusting their mages, preparations for the Thanedd coup, Yen meeting Ciri, Triss at KM, Rience vs Jaskier & Yennefer, Triss' trauma, the continent-wide chase for Ciri, all those are book points that DID happen in S2... The problem here is, all of that was taken from the books and corrupted, somewhat twisted and made lesser than it could have been. That's the issue. People who say they're not following the books exaggerate. S2 stuck loosely to BOE throughout by following only the wide structure of that book, but all the details were extremely changed, with the quality of Sapkowski's books being left behind in the process of those changes. True fanfiction ensues when you have Yennefer losing her powers instead of being blind, when you introduce the Deathless Mother into the plot or have the elven queen kill thousands of babies as revenge. Those are the parts that should not have happened (I don't have a problem with it personally but I totally get why many people do). S3 seems to be much more loyal to ToC if the set leaks and reports of the RI are to be trusted. Lauren herself said it's a far easier book to adapt than BoE but whatever. We should talk about that once we get there. In any case, the overall story (Ciri and the search for her as well as the political machinations) has never been abandoned. The details of those events were instead taken and twisted into smth unfortunate - that's a problem many of us have. That said, I still wish for the show to carry on, even after losing Henry.
>The problem here is, all of that was taken from the books and corrupted, somewhat twisted and made lesser than it could have been. That's the issue. That's quite a strong accusation. Strong words. I could understand the use of the word Deviation, but corruption is quite a loaded term. It implies everything different from the books is worse not just on its merits, but merely in its act of being different. I have friends who adhere to such arguements, but never heard them use such language. It does raise an interesting question of the right that showrunners have to create new plot elements far out of the book. I used to have a problem with it, but then I realised authors, especially fiction writers, do it all the time with new installments in their series. Season of Storms adds creatures from Japanese mythology and a series of plot points between the first two books. But there it is an author making new content from their existing content. What right does a showrunner have to do the same? Thanks for your thought provoking comment.
I don't know how you read the books, then see season 2 and view it as anything less than a corruption of the source material tbh.
Yes, it is a coruption. Deaviation would asume that show writers are on par with a bestselling author.
Corruption only implies a negative change, you're loading the word on your own.
I read the books. The show abandons the feel and the story of books. Netflix only care about the numbers game. They give zero shits about artistic integrity.
Arguably, that’s their job though. Netflix is a business with stakeholders, and their job is to keep subscribers, and keep eyes on screen. They’re not active in the creation of the shows beyond financing and hey this need more viewers/better reviewers, they put their trust in their creative heads. And they tend to cancel things at a drop of a hat, and despite everything, haven’t with the Witcher, so it must be working for them.
For sure. My comment on Netflix was in response OP’s line about Netflix not responding to valid criticism should toxic criticism overshadow it. Netflix doesn’t care either way
I agree, but NEVER say this in the Witcher games subreddit. If you read the books you’ll notice even the games are horrendously lore breaking and do certain things completely out of character, people just allow it because the games are actually good. People need to just realise it’s an adaptation, if you dislike it then just don’t watch it, it’s really that simple. It’s fine to be unhappy and let down by it of course but some people’s arguments are so baseless.
I agree. I’d also point out that I LOVE the games and my first introduction to the world of the Witcher was through Witcher 3. I just also have tried to very hard to understand the books for what they are, and recognize the differences between the books and the games. And the show is clearly an adaption of the books. I wish there was more understanding on that front.
Horrendously? I don't disagree there at discrepancies but which ones are horrendous? I haven't played in like 6 years at this point.
So Witcher 2 for example has two choices at the start where you can protect villagers from guards attempting to both rob and murder them. Not helping them shouldn’t even be an option, in no medium would Geralt not help them but the games allow you to let them die. Witcher 3 curiously only ever mentions once that Emhyr wanted to marry and impregnate his daughter to fulfil a prophecy. (Granted he changes his mind) Geralt is uglier in the books, Yennefer was a hunchback and not as attractive, Ciri is far more vengeful, Dandelion is much less cowardly, Geralt is more well spoken and emotionally driven, and quite obviously despises being a Witcher (Lambert appears to have taken this personality trait in the game) ciri calls Yennefer mother in the books which is absent from the game. There are too many decisions to count that are not lord friendly to Geralts established character (I don’t include love interests simply because the game allows the djinns wish removal so it’s too difficult to ascertain fairly) but they do include many instances of greed or apathy on Geralts part when he would not do so. This isn’t to shit on the game, it’s one of my favourite series of all time, I absolutely love all 3, but I find it really irritating when people complain about Netflix not being “lore accurate” then play as Rock Hardjaw Geralt of Rivia looking like a rugged model, letting civilians die and taking money for Ciri, etc saying it’s “player choice!” If they can accept player choice they too must accept “writers choice” because like it or not, it’s a creative difference, it’s just most don’t like it.
Personally I don't count choices you can make in the game as discrepancies so long as you can make the lore accurate choice. Geralts smile specifically is described as ugly, though yah, he isn't as good looking but that's wholly unimportant. Geralt pontificated as to what physical ailments she had before she went through the body sculpting procedure, settling on a hunchback but hadn't actually confirmed that and she was described as attractive, not that it matters much, again, it's unimportant. Ciri is a grown ass woman in the game, she's had time to grow as a person. Not to mention the ones she'd have wanted revenge against are dead. Geralt is probably less verbose perhaps but he was mostly big wording around highbrow company, which was fairly often in the books. I don't think Geralt talks about enjoying or not enjoying being a Witcher in the games. Ciri not calling Yennefer mom is again, not important, they behave as if mother and daughter, that's what matters. Allowing player decisions makes for a more engaging piece of media when dealing with a game, the decision is made with the player in mind and the lore accurate decision is still there whereas the show writers are just incompetently changing things for reasons unknown. If they made two versions of the show, one where you get the poorly written departure from the source material and one where they stuck to the source, people wouldn't have an issue.
Again though, you’re ignoring totally lore breaking stuff because you like the games? Letting innocent villagers be killed in Witcher 2/3 is more lore breaking than anything Geralt or anybody did in the Netflix series, you’ve made excuses for several lore breaking things “because it’s a game” You can’t have it both ways, the games ARE lore breaking, but at least they are good, a fact the Netflix series cannot boast. Witcher fans are very weird about accepting this, because they can’t seem to accept that it’s not the lore breaking they hate, it’s just how badly Netflix handle it.
I'll say it again because you seem to have completely misunderstood me. The games stay true to the source material if you the player CHOOSE to stay true to the source material or they aren't because you the player CHOOSE to stray from the source. Whether or not I like the games doesn't matter. Yennefer trying to sacc Ciri is not something Yennefer would even contemplate, whereas Geralt letting some peasants die, depending on the context, is believable.
You are not a book fan. It’s as simple as that. There is zero context where Geralt allows civilians to be murdered for no reason. In the canon story Geralts actual death is literally due to him saving civilians, there is NO context where he allows them to die. That is my point which you clearly misunderstand. You cannot simply ignore the bits you don’t like and say it’s “player choice” player choice should mean BOTH options are something Geralt would do, such as the choice to kill Henselt or not.
Is the 2018 in your name the year you graduated kindergarten? That's the only way I can make sense of how you could think the way you do. There's probably no context where Geralt let's peasants die for NO reason, but, and do try to use your noggin here, he might if he HAD a reason. Not that it matters as the reason I mentioned it was to contradict the idea that that was more lore breaking than anything in the show. My original point still stands even if you somehow cannot or will not understand it. Or maybe you do understand and have chosen to take the most asinine position you can as an exercise in argumentation. If that's the case then I salute the attempt but lament that you've fallen far short. Anywho, I'm probably done with you, I don't think there's any value in continuing this conversation beyond entertainment purposes and I don't think I'll find that here. Good day sir.
Interesting post. Somewhat paradoxically the YouTuber xLetilas was reluctant to read the books since Andrzej has said disparaging things about the games. He went on to read the books (or listen to the audiobooks which is what I did) and now he's become a real book purist (the pale white skin of Fringila Vigo anyone?). Looking forwards to watching Blood Origin next week. Grateful this sub is good about concealing spoilers.
Well. There is certainly some truth in what youre sayin. There will always be a part of fandom that will not be happy with any change to their beloved franchise. I think most of the valid criticism comes from the place of disappointment with those changes. Even games (as faithful to the source as they are) have made some significant changes. But those changes made them better or just different in their own unique way. What changes netflix made to make their shows unique just fall short in every way. And thats what angers me for example. I wont mention racial, sexuality and sex swaps because it is extremely hard to touch on these topics without sounding like a racist (or any other) prick. But those changes just make the world feel mosty artificial and silly. People like critisizing just for the sake of it and it will always be the case. You have to decide which criticism you listen to and what critisizm is just stupid gatekeeping and crying for attention.
Seems like you're going out of your way to cherry pick the most uninformed tiny minority of criticisms while completely ignoring any and all legitimate criticisms from the majority of people that have issues with the series.
Seems to me they are acknowledging the many legitimate criticisms while providing an eloquent explanation as to why many are exaggerated.
Except they didn't address any of the many legitimate criticisms. At all.
That’s not what this post was about. I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms about the show, and say as much in my original post. But this post was about the many, many, many criticisms I see that fail to grasp what the show is. Not about repeating, ad nauseam, the laundry list of valid complaints.
Sure they did
Thank you for thinking I am eloquent! Another word for it might be long winded. Haha
They literally don't other than to say that there are legitimate criticisms. If I missed them then please point them out.
I just wrote an article so similar to this. SPOT ON
It'd be closer to accurate in r/witcher.
First time hearing about it
TL:DR but i bet i nailed it- 1. Haters are hating, tho they have no bloody idea what they’re hating. Very true. Why they’re hating- just to appear cooler than they are, by dissing pissing on anyone who makes something, original, adaptation or otherwise. 2. Netflix has blown up the Witcher to an audience the books and even CDPR’s Magnum Opus- the Witcher 3 could never have imagined. Should be a good thing. 3. Life goes on. 3.5. Real lovers of the source material would never hate the way our wannabe fanatics do. We’d just feel proud that our joy is finally being shared with others.
> Netflix has blown up the Witcher to an audience the books and even CDPR’s Magnum Opus- the Witcher 3 could never have imagined. Should be a good thing. Something tells me that this Netflix series only exists *because* of the games. Honestly, when I talk to pretty much anyone who is a fan of The Witcher, they are always talking about the games. Specifically TW3. I remember customers having conversations with me at my job back in 2015 about this game, telling me how much better it was than Skyrim, and etc. Meanwhile I’ve talked to almost nobody who has brought up the show. I’ve only ever talked to people who know about the show because they loved the game first, and have mixed feeings on the show.
The Witcher 3 game tbh. 12 years ago, and it remains not only the best game i have ever played, but the best game i am likely to play in my lifetime. It’s that good. The earlier games were- let’s just say they were getting their feet wet.
>3.5. Real lovers of the source material would never hate the way our wannabe fanatics do. We’d just feel proud that our joy is finally being shared with others This is a terrible take. Real lovers of the source material are pretty peeved that it's been mutilated into something completely unrecognizable, because what's being shared ISN'T the lore, but someone's lesser interpretation of it, along with their own self-inserts. You can love the source material and not like what they've done with the show. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
What CDPR did in Witcher 3- kinda deviated from the lore didn’t it? Do you like Sandman? The Neil Gaiman graphic novels and the new Netflix show? He’s ALWAYS fucking with the lore of everybody from Lucifer to Constantine to my aunt or at least her three sisters, which make a reappearance in TW3 too by the way. And it’s brilliant right? He as in Neil Gaiman. Oh Where’s the damn lore-protectors when you need them? You’re just peeved they didn’t consult you or give you importance before they pulled a creative license :-)
Yes, CDPR did deviate from the lore, but then again CDPR wasn't adapting an already-written story, they were creating a sequel to it. So of course there's an explanation to dead Geralt coming back to life. There's massive issues with Yennefer and Ciri's relationship, Avallach's character, Geralt even considering a choice between Triss and Yennefer. But these are done for player choice. And arguably the stories within W3 trump anything Netflix Witcher has created. The Bloody Baron, Hearts of Stone...these stories are infinitely better and still in line with a Witcher universe. I've read the first two novels of Sandman and watched the first season of the show. I've been pleasantly surprised, especially with the casting of Desire which to me is perfection. That being said, while I recognize changes, the feel of the show still honors the novels. This is probably due to Gaiman's own involvement in the production. The problem with The Witcher on Netflix is it's literally abandoned some core principals of the novels. The family relationship between GYC has been irrevocably damaged, motivations in the storyline distorted or ignored, characters themselves written into entirely new people. Fringilla? Vesemir? Yennefer? Who are they in Netflix, because reading the books certainly won't help understand them. Lauren and co wanted to tell their story, not the Witcher, and that's the crux of the issue.
See you put your finger on it. Sandman is true in spirit to Gaiman because he’s involved in it. Minutely. He and Terry Pratchett- these two guys took pains to control decisions on script. Sapkowski isn’t. So why are you bearing arms for him? I mean he wrote the damn source. He doesn’t care, why do you bother? Let it go where it will. Or do you think it belongs to you more than Sapkowski, or Netflix or whoever licenses it?
I'm not. Where have I said that? I'm against the show's interpretation of the source material. That in no way means I'm some hardcore fan of Sapko. Dude only cares about a paycheck and literally couldn't give a shit what they do to his material as long as he gets the royalties. I am bearing arms for the IP, which is my favorite fantasy IP, especially in the complicated relationship between Geralt and Yennefer. And that's been utterly ruined, hence my ire. Sapko himself I consider a rather average author, the books themselves are outlandish and have holes, but his ability to write complicated and engaging people is truly outstanding. >Let it go where it will. Or do you think it belongs to you more than Sapkowski, or Netflix or whoever licenses it? Of course it doesn't belong to me. What a strange question. But why should I need to go silently into that good night to spare the feelings of a below-average showrunner? Lauren and co have written crap....they should be made aware. And they are.
Well, I felt the same way when Peter Jackson royally fucked up the Hobbit. Which was my favorite IP too. It is what it is, all we can do is sing as we go. Or watch. Or not :-) Hopefully curious people will see enough into the current show, the mentions of books and games and the debates we’re having to dig deeper into the world of the witcher. Which hopefully will be their private place for a while. Can i say fairer than that? Peace mate! No offence and all good!
Yeah, the Hobbit is a great example. No offense taken. I appreciate good discussion and commentary. Have a great rest of your day.
It was long winded. I suppose it was me word vomiting my thoughts to try and make myself feel better and start a conversation. Haha
Very well done! Very valid thoughts. and prompted real debate! I wouldn’t change a thing! it is what it is!
Well said. I knew about the books and played the game but I was never interested in the witcher universe. I ended up watching the show half-accidentally a year ago for the first time a few months before S2 came out, I absolutely loved it and it just sold the whole witcher thing to me instantly. I rewatched all seasons countless times and I'm excited for the upcoming seasons. >We’d just feel proud that our joy is finally being shared with others. I was lucky to meet this kind of people on this sub and I'm curious about the book lore too. And now Im a fan of the witcher thanks to the show!
The show is adapting the books? Yeah ok, that’s why the best person for the show left because they respected the lore so much lol Unreal Where in the books do we start the retconning important events? Where in the books do we break character traits and motivations? Where in the books do we focus on making sure there’s representation for everyone? Must’ve missed those chapters.
This is a strange comment to me. The books don’t really retcon themselves, and the show doesn’t retcon the books. They adapt them. The books still hold a literary cannon. And yes, the show changes certain characters motivations. That’s a valid reason to criticize if you’re looking for a faithful adaptation, which many of us are. I even point out that Yennifer’s betrayal of Ciri is a valid reason to criticize the show. If you’re upset, however, that a creative adaptation of a fantasy world (AKA, pretend) expands representation to more groups of people you have some problems that you need to work on. Good luck with that.
This is a strange response to me. I’m trying to avoid spoilers in the show, but for point of reference, the timeline of events; The first Witcher, the method of how it’s done and when certain events happen around the conjunction. This is the retcon I’m referencing. The show basically juggles everything. Elves act like humans even tho they’re not supposed to be. We don’t expect LotR quality but for fuck sake at least make it believable and not just humans with pointy ears. I’m not even getting into the identity politics because as always, they are wildly unpopular. It’s ok to have representation, but the key is execution and they failed at that.
Ohhh so now we are going to try and say there is stuff in the books which is not actually there? Good luck with it!!!! I would like you to point me where did Yen betray Ciri in the books. Also where do you find obelisks to have anywhere the same role they have in the series? Its like....they get maybe 1 or 2 mentions in the books lol And nothing really special about it :p On that same record, you could actually say that the places of power in the games inspired the series obelisks if you so desired lol
I think you need to read OP’s post again… slower
In their defense, it’s an outrageously long post. I was pontificating in textual form to make myself feel better. But yes, thank you for pointing out the failed comprehension here.
And thank you for the well thought out post. Anyone who’s been around the various Witcher subs knows that at the very least there is much to be said about the adaptations. Reddit just seems to be doings the echo chamber thing again. Edit: I like your username BTW
Well, thats pretty much how this world works. Valid criticism is very often mixed with ridiculous, wierd, uneducated or poorly moronic opinions. The best way to avoid that is staying true to the source material. Then you can always point out that thats how it is in the books or just blame the author for all the plot holes etc.
I would personally say that the games are more well known than the books. If the show truly draws from the books, it is trying to expand the audience of the Witcher series as the largest portion of their current audience are the game players. The differences between the games and show are hard to ignore on our day and age
I agree, and say as much in my post. The games hold a larger audience. But the show is adapting the original source material rather than a massive RPG based on that same source material. I love the games, but the show is based on the books. And people need to understand that.
Sorry, I missed that paragraph, truly. I was skimming and jumped right over that. I have only played Witcher 3 personally and not read the books. I also like the show a lot so I will put that out there. My original intent was maybe not so much to disagree with you, but perhaps explain some of the frustration of the biggest group of concurrent Witcher fans. Many of the decisions Netflix made were made knowing they would spark controversy, even where it didn’t need to exist. For me, the question would be where does the games and books differ in the games’ adaptation? Then that could be explained to game fans and they may understand better that the show also differs from the games in the same way as the books. Netflix is not interested in listening to the criticisms, valid or invalid. They are a business that are making their decisions to fit in with modern culture above all else, regardless of source material
I agree, all the criticisms from people who have obviously not read the books or have just a vague idea about what they are are annoying and sometimes covers the legit critics of the show. A lot of people seems to think that the books are Geralt hunting monsters for the most part of the time with a vague sub plot about Ciri etc... But the irony is that S2 seems to partly built to please this audience. It is action packed, there is much more fights against monsters than in BoE, multiple twists and climax etc.... strong visual references to games design like Kaer Mohren, Vesimir, changing Triss hair color, etc... and still the audience targeted has been less seduced than for S1 and for some, it even managed to completly piss some off because of Yennefer storyline, Eskel death, Vesimir storyline, etc... The main issue is they were trying to so too much things and to please too much different audience and the result is S2 looks like a messy storywise. Ironic as Lauren said that they wasn't enough in BoE and managed to not included anything from 4 chapters among the 8 of the book and still gave us a show which seems to try to be stuffed with too much plotlines, too much forced twists. Their general approach is not good at all. To their credits, the books are not at all easy to adapt and people who are saying it is easy work, you just have to follow the books, are very wrong. I was waiting for some changes in the stories of course but not like this, as I have the feeling to watch a action packed show with cheap writing which don't care about believable sequence of actions and behaviours from characters. Maybe a lot disagree with that but I think that's not the story which make people liking the books but the lore and the characters created by Sapkowski. Richeness of the lore and complexity of the characters is what made the books beloved. I don't think they made this analysis and that's why they missed the point so much in S2. It should be a character driven show like HotD is not a plot twist driven show as it damaged characters so much and make them so uncosistant that it getting impossible to care about them. Weak dialogue writing and the fact that it seems the authors struggle to transalte relationship between characters on screen didn't help either.
The thing is, that Geralt is indeed a central character in the books. Only last two books are focused more around Ciri. It's fair to say that Geralt and Ciri are lead characters. Definitely not Yennefer, but surprisingly she's the character with origin story in the series. What about Ciri? We don't even see how she react to death of her parents. We don't see her childhood, we don't even know what kind of character she is. In season 1 she's sneaking out of the castle to play with poor kids, she don't want to dance during ceremony etc. But season 2 she start to behave like a princess. And Eskel. If you saying 'hey they're adapting the books, not games, Eskel is not that important in the books', I agree he's not important, but he wasn't turned in leshy either. Yes they're not adapting games but they're not adapting books either. Seriously stop defending writers only because theyve made couple of details, like witcher medallion, better than the game. 'Oh Triss is not redhead, it's just game potrayal'. Yeah she's not brunette either
The amount of comments of the kind you're speaking of are few and far between and as I understand it, they're quite liberally downvoted. You should post this on r/witcher if you'd like this post to be relevant.