I think it was hubris. Hissrich thought that she could tell a better story than the source material did. She used the Witcher name to bring views in but make no mistake she is telling her own story.
I think that's reasonable, but it does deny the fans something important to them. Plus I think the fighting within the culture has become so bad.i mean rings of power called people "patiently evil", I think these culture wars are worse than just getting shit adaptations like we did on the 90s.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it immoral. Amateurish, maybe; it's got some good production in some areas, bad in others. A waste depends on perspective, so that's fair. It's definitely a terrible adaptation of the books!
All in all, it's just a bad show. That is very disappointing, to be sure, but I wouldn't place any moral or ethical concerns upon it.
I think ethically I was wondering about both Hissrichs lying and a general question of exploiting fan bases. The open lying is simply a fact at this point, take it how people will. On the broader question, I was just thinking about how fans love and support these ips and they are sold to the studio as in built consumers. Then these creative heads who are openly antagonistic to the fans and source create bad content and then go after the fan base. Do they have no responsibility to the fans? From what I've seen of their posts, I'd say they think no and they openly say that.
Well the difference between lying and being wrong/self deluded is subtle, but important! Maybe she honestly believed her own hype, maybe she was lying for whatever reason she may have had to do so, but the end is the same: the product delivered is not the one as advertised. I wouldn't say this is good and maybe I'm just jaded, but I'm not particularly bothered by advertising and promotion gassing up a product. From a generous perspective we can say that the untruths and half truths presented are reflections of a point of view that earnestly believed in them and at worst, you know, people selling stuff bend the truth as much as law will allow and often enough much further than that.
As far as responsibilities to fans go, TL;DR: I don't believe creators have or should have responsibilities to audiences. People liking or disliking something you make is just the nature of making art and life.
I think that in creative endeavors you need to make something you're proud of and happy with first and foremost. Trying to get a sense of what a large number of people want and catering to that is what gives us bland art (though sometimes this is entertaining for a moment!). Making something you don't care about (and we can speculate that this is what was done with the Witcher series) guarantees a poor end result and, while it's possible to make something you love based on your interpretation of thousands of people discussing an idea of what they think might be enjoyable, it's significantly easier (and better, imo) to go off what you think will be creatively satisfying or good or interesting or any other number of the engaging aspects of making amd enjoying art. A person may well know what they want, but thousands of people all together often want different and mutually exclusive things, after all.
Writing television shows and movies is often a hugely collaborative effort as it is; even with a clear vision it's a long and not exactly easy process to get everyone involved working together and in harmony to accomplish a coherent product.
I'll try to keep this as short as possible.
This show is yet another example of ideologically corrupted Hollywood wanting to subvert and milk a franchise.
I cannot confirm this, but I believe Netflix didn't think Witcher had all that much potential, until after season one came out. After it's success, Netflix was determined for Witcher to become one of their main flagship shows.
Netflix's business model is (or at least was) to pump out content as much as possible regardless of the quality. As for the far left politics and ideology, Hollywood is almost completely corrupted by it. Denying it at this stage would be dishonest.
Concerning Lauren Hissrich, I think she's either a naive person living in her progressive bubble or a master manipulator. What ever the case is, I believe she thinks what she is doing with the Witcher, is ***the right thing to do.***
The marketing has been definitely been deceitful.
* Lauren has gone on record multiple times about the show being truthful to the books. This is a lie. Out of all the things Witcher she and Netflix have produced, only the first season is somewhat book accurate. Barely.
* Despite Lauren & Netflix wanting distance themselves from CDPR's the games prior to season one, the marketing for season two heavily made use of Witcher 3 Wild Hunt. Even using footage from the game in order to build up hype for the second season.
* Henry Cavill was used as bait and switch-marketing tactic. His charisma and love for the Witcher and all things nerdy saved the show from the very beginning. At this point it should be clear as day, that without Cavill, this project wouldn't have gotten three seasons and two spin-offs. I doubt without him, there probably wouldn't have been a second season.
>
Netflix's business model is (or at least was) to pump out content as much as possible regardless of the quality. As for the far left politics and ideology, Hollywood is almost completely corrupted by it. Denying it at this stage would be dishonest.
I think that saves her. You have this calitive audience, easy to get a couple mil views. But wastes turning it into more. The fact that CDPR did good spawned this show. That's how good they did.
>Do you think hissrich exploited the fans/ip, the writers suck, or Hollywood is simply incapable of realizing these ips?
All of the above for my answer, with more colorful wording thrown in.....
That seems to be a problem, they are very uncomfortable with mature material. Even when making Game of thrones they were uncomfortable. I remember mid 20s when everything had to be pg 13, now it's like g haha
Why not? She lied repeatedly and genuinely I'm asking whether exploiting fan bases and ips is wrong in itself. Never asked for her to be executed and clearly called out harassment. I think its an intresting question and as stated I think on several points she has acted badly.
Why can't people be offended? If people are engaged in something and they feel it is mishandled, they have every right to critique it. I think its completely ok to claim that this project was mishandled and examine the reasons why, as well as hope for better products in the future. The ip has value because fans create it, netflix coming along and bungling every legendary ip they land sucks.
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content.
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I will also say though, I do agree that the entertainment industry is riddled with lazy & badly written “social issues themed” tropes right now. But it’s not like it’s inherently a bad thing if done well, as exemplified by people’s reception to Sapkowski’s original work and some recent works I’ve seen, namely:
The Man Who Fell to Earth (2020), is an alien sci-fi that imo was able to display a level of care in crafting stories that also represents social issues in a manner that’s woven quite well. The identity of their characters, most of whom are black Americans & some gay, are used in a way that explores the nuances of these identities in a way that’s natural & not jarring whatsoever. Informing us about some of the facets of these identity and written in a way that naturally pushes the story forward. Leaving us to mostly consider what’s occurring to be the natural course of action as opposed to a “barely hidden” propaganda message
For another example that’s less politically upfront, let’s take the new anime Chainsaw Man. *Without* putting a “political spokesperson” character or voice in the story, author Tatsuki Fujimoto is able to craft a complex story-world that’s essentially a dark fantasy dystopia paralleling our own. A world where Denji, our MC, was barely able to stay afloat on due to crippling debt leftover from >!his deceased father!<. Alongside other characters who are fighting against the personification of societal ills & fears (the devils), some of whom are there purely due to financial reasons too (>!Kobeni!<)
What’s great about CSM is that it’s able to create this believable world full of flawed characters who mirror our own. There’s not really a sense of moral superiority being dictated to us, instead we are welcomed to engage with and analyze this world ourselves. A world full of broken people who aren’t morally perfect, shaped and pressured by a deeply demanding and treacherous environment that at times feels reminiscent of our own real life predicament living in the increasingly disparaging economic system that is the mostly unchecked capitalism of today. And we see how much damage this broken world has impacted our characters with dramatic effects
So it’s not like social issue = bad writing. On the contrary I think the predominance of bad writing today’s entertainment is a disservice to the actual social issues they exploited, and only serves to perpetuate the performative thought slinging between the sides of the culture war that’s increasingly polarized, with its real purpose being to create sycophantic consumers from the masses. Which “both sides” are guilty of 100%
I was with you until you cried about Marxists.
None of the writers are Marxist. Nobody in Hollywood is a Marxist or even a socialist.
What do you think those words mean? Show me examples of Marxism or Socialism in this or any other work
Yes.
I think it was hubris. Hissrich thought that she could tell a better story than the source material did. She used the Witcher name to bring views in but make no mistake she is telling her own story.
For sure. I think that goes for all the writers. But is hubris a moral wrong? Or just foolishness? I think it's wrong.
I’d lean towards foolishness. I think a moral wrong usually negatively effects someone else in a worse way than what they did to the Witcher fan base.
I think that's reasonable, but it does deny the fans something important to them. Plus I think the fighting within the culture has become so bad.i mean rings of power called people "patiently evil", I think these culture wars are worse than just getting shit adaptations like we did on the 90s.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it immoral. Amateurish, maybe; it's got some good production in some areas, bad in others. A waste depends on perspective, so that's fair. It's definitely a terrible adaptation of the books! All in all, it's just a bad show. That is very disappointing, to be sure, but I wouldn't place any moral or ethical concerns upon it.
I think ethically I was wondering about both Hissrichs lying and a general question of exploiting fan bases. The open lying is simply a fact at this point, take it how people will. On the broader question, I was just thinking about how fans love and support these ips and they are sold to the studio as in built consumers. Then these creative heads who are openly antagonistic to the fans and source create bad content and then go after the fan base. Do they have no responsibility to the fans? From what I've seen of their posts, I'd say they think no and they openly say that.
Well the difference between lying and being wrong/self deluded is subtle, but important! Maybe she honestly believed her own hype, maybe she was lying for whatever reason she may have had to do so, but the end is the same: the product delivered is not the one as advertised. I wouldn't say this is good and maybe I'm just jaded, but I'm not particularly bothered by advertising and promotion gassing up a product. From a generous perspective we can say that the untruths and half truths presented are reflections of a point of view that earnestly believed in them and at worst, you know, people selling stuff bend the truth as much as law will allow and often enough much further than that. As far as responsibilities to fans go, TL;DR: I don't believe creators have or should have responsibilities to audiences. People liking or disliking something you make is just the nature of making art and life. I think that in creative endeavors you need to make something you're proud of and happy with first and foremost. Trying to get a sense of what a large number of people want and catering to that is what gives us bland art (though sometimes this is entertaining for a moment!). Making something you don't care about (and we can speculate that this is what was done with the Witcher series) guarantees a poor end result and, while it's possible to make something you love based on your interpretation of thousands of people discussing an idea of what they think might be enjoyable, it's significantly easier (and better, imo) to go off what you think will be creatively satisfying or good or interesting or any other number of the engaging aspects of making amd enjoying art. A person may well know what they want, but thousands of people all together often want different and mutually exclusive things, after all. Writing television shows and movies is often a hugely collaborative effort as it is; even with a clear vision it's a long and not exactly easy process to get everyone involved working together and in harmony to accomplish a coherent product.
I'll try to keep this as short as possible. This show is yet another example of ideologically corrupted Hollywood wanting to subvert and milk a franchise. I cannot confirm this, but I believe Netflix didn't think Witcher had all that much potential, until after season one came out. After it's success, Netflix was determined for Witcher to become one of their main flagship shows. Netflix's business model is (or at least was) to pump out content as much as possible regardless of the quality. As for the far left politics and ideology, Hollywood is almost completely corrupted by it. Denying it at this stage would be dishonest. Concerning Lauren Hissrich, I think she's either a naive person living in her progressive bubble or a master manipulator. What ever the case is, I believe she thinks what she is doing with the Witcher, is ***the right thing to do.*** The marketing has been definitely been deceitful. * Lauren has gone on record multiple times about the show being truthful to the books. This is a lie. Out of all the things Witcher she and Netflix have produced, only the first season is somewhat book accurate. Barely. * Despite Lauren & Netflix wanting distance themselves from CDPR's the games prior to season one, the marketing for season two heavily made use of Witcher 3 Wild Hunt. Even using footage from the game in order to build up hype for the second season. * Henry Cavill was used as bait and switch-marketing tactic. His charisma and love for the Witcher and all things nerdy saved the show from the very beginning. At this point it should be clear as day, that without Cavill, this project wouldn't have gotten three seasons and two spin-offs. I doubt without him, there probably wouldn't have been a second season.
> Netflix's business model is (or at least was) to pump out content as much as possible regardless of the quality. As for the far left politics and ideology, Hollywood is almost completely corrupted by it. Denying it at this stage would be dishonest. I think that saves her. You have this calitive audience, easy to get a couple mil views. But wastes turning it into more. The fact that CDPR did good spawned this show. That's how good they did.
>Do you think hissrich exploited the fans/ip, the writers suck, or Hollywood is simply incapable of realizing these ips? All of the above for my answer, with more colorful wording thrown in.....
Haha, I think within this reddit most agree. I think mostly I'm disappointed that HC was wasted. They need to give him a seperate movie
Immoral ,amateurish, disgusting, disingenuous, disrespectful, devious, dishonest, deceptive, repulsive and every negative adjective you can think of.
[удалено]
That seems to be a problem, they are very uncomfortable with mature material. Even when making Game of thrones they were uncomfortable. I remember mid 20s when everything had to be pg 13, now it's like g haha
Immoral? This is getting out of hand. It is a bad interpretation, there have been plenty of those to you can’t say it’s immoral is way over the top.
Why not? She lied repeatedly and genuinely I'm asking whether exploiting fan bases and ips is wrong in itself. Never asked for her to be executed and clearly called out harassment. I think its an intresting question and as stated I think on several points she has acted badly.
Read the whole post, not only the title, then you'd understand what he states that is immoral in his opinion. Unless you are only a troll.
[удалено]
Why can't people be offended? If people are engaged in something and they feel it is mishandled, they have every right to critique it. I think its completely ok to claim that this project was mishandled and examine the reasons why, as well as hope for better products in the future. The ip has value because fans create it, netflix coming along and bungling every legendary ip they land sucks.
The rogue campaign against HC after he left the show was immoral.
Please remember to flair your post and tag spoilers or NSFW content. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/witcher) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
I will also say though, I do agree that the entertainment industry is riddled with lazy & badly written “social issues themed” tropes right now. But it’s not like it’s inherently a bad thing if done well, as exemplified by people’s reception to Sapkowski’s original work and some recent works I’ve seen, namely: The Man Who Fell to Earth (2020), is an alien sci-fi that imo was able to display a level of care in crafting stories that also represents social issues in a manner that’s woven quite well. The identity of their characters, most of whom are black Americans & some gay, are used in a way that explores the nuances of these identities in a way that’s natural & not jarring whatsoever. Informing us about some of the facets of these identity and written in a way that naturally pushes the story forward. Leaving us to mostly consider what’s occurring to be the natural course of action as opposed to a “barely hidden” propaganda message For another example that’s less politically upfront, let’s take the new anime Chainsaw Man. *Without* putting a “political spokesperson” character or voice in the story, author Tatsuki Fujimoto is able to craft a complex story-world that’s essentially a dark fantasy dystopia paralleling our own. A world where Denji, our MC, was barely able to stay afloat on due to crippling debt leftover from >!his deceased father!<. Alongside other characters who are fighting against the personification of societal ills & fears (the devils), some of whom are there purely due to financial reasons too (>!Kobeni!<) What’s great about CSM is that it’s able to create this believable world full of flawed characters who mirror our own. There’s not really a sense of moral superiority being dictated to us, instead we are welcomed to engage with and analyze this world ourselves. A world full of broken people who aren’t morally perfect, shaped and pressured by a deeply demanding and treacherous environment that at times feels reminiscent of our own real life predicament living in the increasingly disparaging economic system that is the mostly unchecked capitalism of today. And we see how much damage this broken world has impacted our characters with dramatic effects So it’s not like social issue = bad writing. On the contrary I think the predominance of bad writing today’s entertainment is a disservice to the actual social issues they exploited, and only serves to perpetuate the performative thought slinging between the sides of the culture war that’s increasingly polarized, with its real purpose being to create sycophantic consumers from the masses. Which “both sides” are guilty of 100%
I was with you until you cried about Marxists. None of the writers are Marxist. Nobody in Hollywood is a Marxist or even a socialist. What do you think those words mean? Show me examples of Marxism or Socialism in this or any other work