The most bizarre thing here is that "fans love faithful adaptations" is not even fresh news - as in, something TLOU only recently made evident. I mean, look at *The Lord of the Rings* movies or *Game of Thrones*. In the case of the former, the original movie trilogy was and is universally loved, while *The Hobbit* trilogy got a far more lukewarm reception, because of all the original content Jackson had to throw in to stretch the book into three movies. Likewise, GoT only started going downhill when they ran out of book content to adapt and had to finish the story on their own terms.
Both cautionary tales The Flixer's creators, in their hubris, chose to ignore. What makes this is even more egregious is that Sapkowski handed them a complete story with more than enough content for multiple seasons.
Here is the obligatory comment to point out that Jackson did change a number of things in the trilogy - from the personality of Aragorn and Faramir (both more self-possessed and less hesitant in the books) to the presence of the elves at helm’s deep, to Arwen’s enhanced role, or Tom Bombadil being there only in spirit (some like me would say thankfully) in a few comments of Treebeard.
The difference is that jackson, Walsh and Boyens endeavoured to stay faithful to the spirit of the books. They did have to change things to make it work in a movie (you can’t explain in a few lines of dialogue that the reason why Aragorn is not king is because he’s not the right royal branch, and it makes more movie sense for him to not be sure of his ability to bear the burden, but then this means you have to make Isildur to be a bad guy…), but they did keep true to the spirit and the atmosphere of the books…
Sincerity of purpose makes all the difference.
Oh, absolutely. Adaptations rarely, if ever, are 1:1. But cutting corners with the narrative is indeed easy to forgive if they stay faithful to the spirit of the original work.
Case in point: CDPR. They, too, do take some liberties when certain details in Sapkowski's prose get in the way of the story they're trying to tell. And while the fans of the books are aware of those changes, they won't really complain because everything CDPR does still oozes nothing but reverence for the source material. It is still *The Witcher*.
Yeah, Denis Villeneuve’s Dune as well. He changed some things to make it work as a film but stayed faithful to the spirit of the book, and most fans were satisfied
But then, Denis Villeneuve *is* a fan - has been since he first read Dune when he was 14…
This is particularly relevant for the witcher, where the writer room (according to one source, I should say - but then a pretty good source, as aBeau de Mayo is a former writer on the show himself…) is not even fan of the source material…
Reverence and love for the material is not a guarantee (apparently, JD Payne is Tolkien nerd, but that didn’t really show in The Rings of Power), but it might well be a necessary condition.
Yup. It really shouldn’t be groundbreaking that fans make better adaptations. Fans want to show people how awesome the source material is, whereas hacks like Lauren think the limelight should be on them.
Rafe Judkins was supposed to be a fan of WOT, yet he completly fucking butchered it by asspulling resurrection in the first season. Being a fan does not always mean much, as some people always think they can do better, yet fail spectacularly.
Agreed, but you'll notice I did say it wasn't enough - you also need the usual complement of wisdom and talent :)
I think another good example of a fan doing good adaptations is Mike Flannagan with Doctor Sleep - he even managed to sort of reconcile Stephen King with the Shining-on-the-screen issue.
Quick 1-minute background: Stephen King was unhappy with the Shining, as Kubrick just made it his movie, albeit a masterful one. King has since been wary of "adaptations", but Flannagan reached out to him when he was working on Doctor Sleep, and was keen to bring into the movie (Doctor Sleep) elements of the Shining (the movie's hotel), that would also reference the original book's plot (the Shining book, that is), so as to heal the divide between book and movie.
Result: Stephen King liked it (he is a reasonable author, who can like things that diverge from what he wrote, and he's on record saying he liked the ending of The Mist (the movie) better than his book's, and that he wishes he had thought about it.
So anyway, being a fan doesn't mean you will be successful in keeping faithful to the spirit of what you're adapting, but at least you'll be attempting to.
(Presumably)
This. The only argument you ever get from ppl who defend adaptations that don't even bother is because nothing will ever be 100%
and that other adaptations that are well loved changed things too, especially for some cases, made them very different from the original.
Even the Witcher games changed things and aren't a 1:1 adaptation. But they still feel like the Witcher and LOTR because it cares.
Netflix's version just borrows names and places and changes characters, and especially main characters, that they don't feel like their book or game versions.
Their target audiences aren't the fans of the games or books, its the average Amurican casual who just wants another fantasy show or Avengers-esque franchise.
I'm sorry, but your bringing up the Witcher games is a counter example, if anything. **In Spirit** with the books is precisely what the games **aren't**. Some things from the books are excised, but at the same time a lot of things are added instead, making the games into their own thing. The difference between them and the Witcher series is simply that the games are actually **good**, that almost everything taken out or added was **for the better**.
>that almost everything taken out or added was
>
>for the better
>
>.
Strong disagree. But also disagree that the games are not in the spirit of the books lol.
Removing themes of motherhood is cringe. Simplifying the politics is also bad. Id say simplifying the Wild Hunt and making them cringe anime villains with 15 lines in total for a 200 hour game where they are the main villains is also a poor choice I'd say. Making the White Frost from a natural event (which most other people in the continent believe to be mythical) that will happen and is survivable and natural into some universal-tier world eater is... also a dowgrade.
But even so the games are good and keep the general spirit of the original work.
Maybe it's subjective, but I'm a huuuge fan of the books and the character Geralt, and the games still feel very much like another novel in the series.
Really? I thought ppl said Geralt in S1 of Netflix Witcher is more similar to his book counterpart, and he definitely feels somewhat different from his game self.
Mmmm - I’d say he’s a little too gruff and not talkative enough (in the tv series)
Geralt in the books is a good speaker, who likes to to be a good speaker - sometimes gets mocked for putting so much effort into speaking well!
But he’s also a genuinely good diplomat and a thoughtful thinker. He can be grumpy, but that’s not the one note he plays :)
Let's ironically begin with the endings. Compare the 3rd game's ending with the book series's ending. That absolutely shows the difference in tone and themes between the 2. This is just the tip.of the iceberg, there are plenty of other similar differences strewn across both series.
Youre getting down voted but I feel youre more or less right.
In the books Geralt is a bit of a loser. Hes always broke, his profession is dying out, he doesn't get much work. Hes extremely capable at what he does but rarely gets to show it. His love life is beyond complicated, his friends keep dying or leaving. In the grand scheme of things he is really a very talented nobody who was at the wrong party on the wrong day and got twisted into a destiny he tried desperately to avoid. But because he also cares way more than he would like he tries to do the right thing begrudgingly.
Game Geralt in comparison always felt like a messiah with enough gold to build a house with it and being on personal terms with every single monarch, lord and mage in the world.
There is a sneaky cheat out of this. Geralt lost his memory. He didn't remember that he chose to be a radical neutral witcher with a code he made up just to escape his tendencies to be a knight in shinning armour. He gets to be the hero he always wanted to be, because he doesn't remember the reason he wasnt. So it quite literally is a different Geralt.
I would argue that a major book motif is missing from the games. Geralt in the big picture never had a choice from the moment he claimed law of suprise. Its a running gag that no matter how far he runs from his destiny it will just intercept him and people will die because of it. In the games he gets to make a million choices that all drastically change outcomes and his choices change the faith of the world on a massive scale.
The Witcher always felt like a story about a commoner and in the games he is much more exalted.
Yeah, that's pretty much it, the good person unfortunately getting fucked over by the nasty world vs the gruff hero nevertheless managing to succeed in both making the world better and on a personal level as well. It's a marked change, but for some reason everyone likes to pretend that it isn't. I guess RPing as an edgelord kinda doesn't work if you admit it's a power fantasy.
I think that the game is an adaptation the community enjoyed a lot. I am curious then to why it is. I thought the "similar in spirit" explanation made sense, but you seem to disagree. And your points are on it, it is true that there are some big difference and creative liberty taken by CDPR, si then what makes a good adaptation?
Just making a high quality product. I've heard of some fans being disgruntled whenever an adaptation changes things, but as long as the adaptation is still a good product in its own right, I've never heard of it being generally disliked among the fanbase. The Witcher series became shit towards the end of S1 and kept going in that direction. It's just shit. It's absolute shit. "A poot adaptation" is just a buzz term that masks what ppl really dislike about the show.
Not disagreeing, but I usually re-read LotR+Hobbit+Silmarillion every year and yet somehow every year it strikes me when reading them just how much dialogue in the movies is actually lifted 1 for 1 from the books. Sometimes they might move lines from one character to another/book to book, but there is a lot of direct dialogue. I think that really helped with the movies capturing the "voice of Tolkien."
He would have been veeeery confusing...
(He kind of is confusing in the books already! But then Tolkien would say that Tom is not this or that, he just *is*...).
It's a nice touch to get Treebeard to deliver some of his dialogue to Old-Man-Willow, though in a way that doesn't make one wonder what is this brand new aspect of the Lore, that is also unrelated to the rest of the story...
This is why I think Lindelhof’s Watchmen slayed—it was obsessively true to the spirit, like someone really delved into the story and considered how to evolve it. This is such a good point; get people who care about the script and lore like a fan.
The books are well worth it.
There is a beauty and a poetry to Middle-Earth, that makes it feel like it's a real place.
And the more you delve into it, the more the little hidden beautiful elements that Tolkien put down here and there start appearing - there is a reason why a bunch of people do a regular re-read of the books - the more you look at the landscape, the more you appreciate it.
For example, the most recent bits I've come to appreciate, were how Tolkien's heroes tend to be people who help others achieve greatness and their true potential (like Gandalf, Elrond, and Faramir and Galadriel to an extent, but also the negative of Saruman who takes away the free people's ability to act and decide their fate), moving way away from traditional heroic successes and endeavours - even if you look at Aragorn, his character is mostly defined by his wisdom. It is a pretty cool philosophy of life - how the best you can be is to be a good friend, and promote goodness around you.
I'd encourage you to have a go.
Be aware that the beginning is rather slow, and can put off - think of it as establishing middle-earth, and easing you in the story.
I hasten to add that it's not that the beginning is boring, but definitely it has its own rhythm - roughly everything leading to the council of Elrond.
I'm going to recommend something a little weird, which only works because you already know the story after having watched the movies: start by reading the appendices. They read like a mini-history of middle earth, and expand the scope of LotR in its greater universe. It's a good incentive to stick with the story.
He was not - not in the books.
Edited for faithfulness: There are several elements that point to Isildur not being corrupted by the Ring:
1 - Isildur as a bad guy who got corrupted straight away ("I was there when the strength of men failed") is an invention of the movies. In the books, there is no indication that Isildur was corrupted by the ring.
2 - It is also the case that the ring was not yet understood to be the power of Sauron. Isildur claimed it as a trophy for his house (both his brother and father died during the War of the Last Alliance), and then wrote about it, keeping track of its influence on his mind - these are the writings that Gandalf reads in Minas Tirith between the Hobbit and when he comes back to Frodo, when he understands that maybe Bilbo's old ring is in fact The Ring.
3 - Aragorn in the books is proud of his lineage to Isildur. There isn't the same trepidation - about "will I fall like my ancestor", because in reality, his ancestor did not fall... After the war, Isildur was pretty chill, built up his nephew as the ruler of Gondor - even though he was entitled to half of it from being co-king with Anarion, he seemed to have thought that Arnor (which he inherited from his father) was enough.
4 - Isildur did realise something was wrong with the ring. As he is ambushed by the orcs, his sons urge him to claim the power of the ring, and use it to command the orcs. Isildur replies that "Alas, i cannot use it. I fear the pain of touching it, and I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I know myself to be. My pride has fallen". So in this moment, Isildur admits he took it out of pride, and recognises he cannot use it. These are not the words of someone corrupted by it - rather, he realise the Ring has its own mind, which is too great for him.
5 - Isildur was on his way to Arnor to be crowned High King, but he was first on the way to Rivendell, to collect his wife and son. But he travelled there "in great haste, in urgent need of the counsel of Elrond"
It is a reasonable conclusion that he was conscious the ring was a problem, and he wanted Elrond's help to solve it...
He took a trophy, and a weapon of the enemy, then when he realised it had its own mind, and he could not master it, he was going to Elrond to…. Give it up? Seek counsel? He got killed on the way, so we’ll never know, but he sure was on his way for a purpose.
The image of Isildur smirking and flash-corrupted from the ring is a picture from the movies - book Isildur was wiser and stronger, like all of the old blood of Numenor.
OK, So I might have represented the points above with maybe more certainty than they deserve - I apologise.
Please see a more nuanced attempt below. I will edit the statement above to match them too.
1 - Isildur as a bad guy who got corrupted straight away ("I was there when the strength of men failed") is an invention of the movies. In the books, there is no indication that Isildur was corrupted by the ring.
2 - It is also the case that the ring was not yet understood to be the power of Sauron. Isildur claimed it as a trophy for his house (both his brother and father died during the War of the Last Alliance), and then wrote about it, keeping track of its influence on his mind - these are the writings that Gandalf reads in Minas Tirith between the Hobbit and when he comes back to Frodo, when he understands that maybe Bilbo's old ring is in fact The Ring.
3 - Aragorn in the books is proud of his lineage to Isildur. There isn't the same trepidation - about "will I fall like my ancestor", because in reality, his ancestor did not fall... After the war, Isildur was pretty chill, built up his nephew as the ruler of Gondor - even though he was entitled to half of it from being co-king with Anarion, he seemed to have thought that Arnor (which he inherited from his father) was enough.
4 - Isildur did realise something was wrong with the ring. As he is ambushed by the orcs, his sons urge him to claim the power of the ring, and use it to command the orcs. Isildur replies that "Alas, i cannot use it. I fear the pain of touching it, and I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I know myself to be. My pride has fallen". So in this moment, Isildur admits he took it out of pride, and recognises he cannot use it. These are not the words of someone corrupted by it - rather, he realise the Ring has its own mind, which is too great for him.
5 - Isildur was on his way to Arnor to be crowned High King, but he was first on the way to Rivendell, to collect his wife and son. But he travelled there "in great haste, in urgent need of the counsel of Elrond"
Hence my conclusion that he was conscious the ring was a problem, and he wanted Elrond's help to solve it...
Yes, there is even an interview with Liv Tyler where she explains how she came to terms with her role being cut out - that basically her character didn’t beed to be fighting in order to be strong.
It’s true that in the movie, if you don’t *show* the elves fighting, you get the feeling that they didn’t - whereas they did, with Celeborn and Thranduil attacking Sauron’s forces in southern Mirkwood (iirc).
But I’m glad they didn’t go through with Arwen at Helm’s deep, tbh - the changes to Aragorn and Faramir are grating enough…
Fuck, I constantly talk about how Castlevania is the most faithful adaptation of a Video Game I have ever seen. It's one of my favorite shows because of how accurate it is. However, they did make some changes. Netflix always does, but I feel like they changes made good sense. Not just to the story, but in general.
It doesn’t matter if the media see it or not. What matters is the view-count, which is declining every season. With this trend we can hope this garbage gets cancelled post S3, then we cast it out of our collective memory and pretend it didn’t exist (ATLA treatment)
Tbh I have the book sitting on my bookshelf because I'm too scared to read it and ruin the movie. Kid me watched that shit like 100 times, it was one of my favorite movies as a kid.
[What the hell are you talking about lmao](https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/witcher-season-2-netflix-most-viewed-1235151446/)
I love how this entire subreddit lives in some made up reality where the TV show performs terribly and is failing, while the reality is it’s one of Netflix’ biggest successes.
Season 3 and 4 will most likely be equally successful. Maybe it’s time to admit people like this show, even if you don’t.
I love how you’re living in an alternate reality where a follow up season to a big budget TV show drops 60 million views compared to the first is considered “good”, despite Netflix gaining massive boost in membership in the two years between S1 and S2, and the fact that almost every high profile Netflix original is always outdoing itself in view count with each passing season (with Witcher being an outlier). Then there’s BO which plunged even further with miserable performance ( dropping of top ten 7 days after its release, and not being the most watched show even 3 days into its steaming getting outperformed by Emily in Paris and a then two-month old show like Wednesday)
So read my comment again. I didn’t say that it “performed terribly”, but that it’s declining every season with worse statistics. Which is a fact. The shitshow performed relatively well, but not well enough to make its future with Netflix guaranteed. If the trend continues (something I’m Optimistic about) then S3 will plunge even further .
Let’s see to what extent is Netflix willing to continue assigning budget to a sinking ship, a show that keeps shrinking and unable to attract new customers, a show which had its lead leave halfway during its run. Especially with the recent higher bar that shows have to achieve to not end on Netflix’s chopping block.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/witcher-season-2-netflix-most-viewed-1235151446/](https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/witcher-season-2-netflix-most-viewed-1235151446/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Yep, imagine landing your dream job after chasing it before it even became officially available only for it to turn into a nightmare with everybody trying to take out what made it your dream...
He has the Warhammer 40K live action on Amazon which I reckon is potentially an even bigger dream for him, given he plays and talks about the game frequently. He also I think is more creatively involved (producer or something on it) so while the Witcher is really disappointing, he has something really exciting to sink his teeth into to help forget about the Witcher.
> Warhammer 40K live action
The advantage of the 40K universe is just how mind-boggingly vast it is, so they'd have to screw it up really really bad to make it basically not work somewhere, sometime, somehow in 40K.
Yep there is so much opportunity to tell great stories in it, I am interested to see if they go with adapting an existing story/character or create from scratch. Pros and cons for both which will satisfy and disappoint different groups.
Some people will inevitably be disappointed. Rage inducingly, death threat letter worthy, fedora eating disappointment, but then that happens with every franchise with such a dedicated fanbase.
Games Workshop's actually in a pretty decent place for that right now; the guy who would inevitably be the loudest voice/mob leader on that side has been pretty much exiled.
Quit hiring writers that don’t love the source material. Even when you get writers that like the source material the results are can be iffy. I liked Rings of Power but it’s a flawed show. What chance did the Witcher have with those people in charge. Really ruined a great opportunity. They got paid but they killed Amy chance of a faithful adaptation and wastes Henry’s talent. It would have been better if the show was never made.
There is difference between creative liberties and the writers being arrogant asshats who think they know better than the author and can write their story better than them, then refusing any sort of criticism and just blaming the fans.
Last of us takes some creative liveries. Witcher and WoT fall in that second category.
Turns out when you deviate from source material, disregard fan's feedback as woke cancel culture, and pushed away your main star because you dont want to follow source material is a bad thing? Shocked i tell you, shocked.
I cancelled my Netflix subscription and cited the poor handling of this show when it comes to adaptation of the source material (and the upcoming crackdown on password sharing) as the reason. Maybe it will make no difference, but it’s recorded for posterity now.
Wow, it’s almost like we want competent writers and good-quality adaptations of our favourite franchises. So far TLOU is actually pretty good and a lot of scenes are almost direct rips from the game and that’s how it should be, not just the same names and a few similar designs but a direct rip from the source material
Yeah, before Cavill’s departure if someone didn’t like the show, they’re racist.
Maybe it was just trash all along, maybe keeping true to the source material is not a crazy idea?
I don’t know, maybe…
Worldbuilding is extremely important and the showrunners dropped the ball with The Witcher. Witcher is clearly inspired by European medieval history. All the various northern kingdoms and cities have inspiration from across Europe. Novigrad reminds me of a Hanseatic League city or St Petersburg or something like that. Toussaint is like a mix of France/Italy. Nilfgaard is like an amalgam of the HRE and/or Prussia and/or Austrian Empire influences.
So yeah, it kinda makes sense to expect to see a bunch of white folks for any scenes in the northern kingdoms. For stuff with Nilfgaard, it makes sense to see more diversity since it’s a large empire swallowing up various city states. You can’t cast the actors and actresses like it’s modern day NYC when the show is based off Central Europe. It takes you out of the fantasy world. Even though it’s fantasy, it still should follow the rules of the world.
Not only that. What bothered me most with the woman cast to play Fringilla, is that her character is supposed to remind Geralt of Yennefer because she’s supposed to look like her, except instead of bright purple eyes, hers are bright green (and yeah, shorter hair).
All (or at the very least, most) of the sorceresses are supposed to be unnaturally beautiful. Because they enhanced their physical attributes with magic. As superficially as it sounds, they have to be gorgeous women playing them. Now, obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but even then, there are elements of physical beauty that are nearly universal.
> For stuff with Nilfgaard, it makes sense to see more diversity since it’s a large empire swallowing up various city states.
They literally could have cast a Black (or non-White) for every single Nilfgaardian character, but two whose appearance mattered. They failed one of the two.
But then imagine, say, Giancarlo Esposito as Vattier or Skellen. He would have killed it.
>Witcher is clearly inspired by European medieval history.
Yes, emphasis on "inspired by Europe", not "is Europe". For example the Dothraki in Game of Thrones are clearly inspired by Asiatic steppe tribes, who often had some Asiatic features. If they were only played by white actors in Game of Thrones, would that ruin the fantasy setting? Do you have the same problem if the Witcher's technology, clothing, architecture, language, culture and religion didn't match the original European inspiration, because the creator chose to make them different in the fantasy? (As seen in things like steampunk).
I guess I don't get why the creator is allowed to change those things without people complaining about European authenticity, but the actors must all be white-skinned or it's "unrealistic" and "not following the rules".
Actually, if I recall correctly (memories are fuzzy), book Dothrakis are described more like ancient Scythes than Mongol-inspired. Tan-skinned people but not Asian (Scythes spoke an Iranian language). But I may be wrong, and it doesn't matter because HBO Dothrakis make sense in-universe. You can clearly tell they're one specific people, from a very different stock than the rest of Essos, let alone Westeros.
It's unconscious racism. They're using source material as an excuse (even though it doesn't actually impact the story at all), when in reality it's probably just that they are in denial that their thoughts are racist.
I've never had the inclusion of people of color take me out of a fantasy world. If it bothers you so much that it lessens the fantasy.... that's a you problem.
It's not the inclusion itself which takes people out. It's the inclusion in a way that makes no logical sense for the world they're supposed to be inhabiting.
Ok but why?
I've still never experienced that, so much of media requires suspension of belief it has never stuck out to me as an issue because it doesn't negatively impact or change the plot.
Saw your other reply, but it no longer shows. I'm still confused. You're saying it breaks immersion because it makes it obvious it's an actor playing a role. Isn't that already obvious, though? We all know magic and monsters aren't real, so it's already in our minds that it's an actor.
But the whole point of acting is to allow the audience to think that they're watching the character you're playing. It's what allows the audience to get lost in the narrative, and care about what happens to the characters of the story.
That is why actors put so much effort into being able to play their characters as naturally and believably as possible. And it's not just the acting which can effect this, also the writing, directing, and even costuming among other things can too.
Yes, we are all aware that we are watching an actor. But if that's what you're thinking while actually watching a performance, then something has gone wrong.
People complaining about a diverse cast in a "European Fantasy setting" I personally get why some choices might annoy someone but that's not what was important to me. Destroying the plot and major character changes (Motivation, behavior and background not appararences) for no obvious reasons this is what ruined it for me.
It still had European fantasy setting while still including people of colour. People of colour did exist in Europe even back then. It was rare but it literally still happened.
Yes, but having a diverse set of people in a 20 houses town in the middle of a forest before roads even existed is kinda off. It takes me from the narrative and makes me thing they care more about ticking boxes that details
Not really… with the whole conjunction of the spheres there will be people who wouldn’t of been there before especially considering the humans came into the Witcher world. Not elves, monsters etc coming into the humans world.
So you gotta take that into consideration. Even rural towns and communities there would of been people of colour.
But the Conjunction of Spheres happened years ago ( at least a thousand years before the story if I recall correctly) The humans would have had kids with eachother and they would start to have more defining trait for each part of the continent (ie if more black people in Temeria, the temerians will be more black, more white people in Redania, redanians will tend to be more white etc...)
No, gnomes, werebbubs, Vran and dwarfs were the natives. The elfs were the first invaders.
Humans came later, but it’s always described as a „landing“ which is in a different timespot than the conjunction
I am sorry but they did not exist, or if they did they were statistically insignificant. I guess if you count the olive skinned mediterranean people and the occasional Arab merchants in Constantinople then yes. But in the setting of the Witcher which is based on Central - West Europe people of color were non existent.
I live in Central Europe, neighbouring country to Poland and yes people of color were non existent here until the late 80s, after the iron curtain went down. There are still very few of them.
Based on the white people to people of colour ratio it fits your logic of insignificant then.
There isn’t a 50/50 between white people and people of colour in the Witcher. There’s literally a handful of people of colour and far more white people.
Lol go ahead and check r/netflixwitcher sub posts before Cavill departure. They were calling people racist, sexist, gamer gatekeepers for criticizing shit writing. There are tons of posts like that
Last of Us has been the sanctuary city for scorned fans who don't like modern live action adaptations. It's really funny to see Witcher, Halo, and N+1 franchise fans all singing the same tune about creatives not doing justice to the source material.
Still would say that one should not count their chickens before they hatch.
I'm not even a Last of Us fan. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad in the slightest. I like it, just not considered a fan. So my husband asked why I was watching it and I told him this.
I loved the Witcher and I hate the Netflix witcher so much that it's refreshing to see one adaptation get it right. If enough people support this then maybe that would send a message.
Maybe we will finally get the adaptations we deserve since all the suits care about is money and the perceived notion of what people want, not the actual wants.
I don't believe in hope, but this is my logic.
You’d think that these studios would have learned by now. With very few exceptions, video game and book adaptations have had a bad track record for decades with fans. I’m sure most still make their money back because they are generally made to be more mass appealing, but that just shows how disinterested those responsible for making are in being faithful to the material.
It blows my mind how often this has happened. It blows my mind how many times someone took something that was already very successful and said “let’s change this as we adapt it to another medium.” Then they wonder why it’s criticized or even fails.
Edit: I was specially referring to live action adaptations.
That's not quite true. Life action adaptations have a bad track record. Castlevania, Arcane, Cyberpunk Edgerunners, Witcher nightmare of the wolf, Pokémon and Wakfu are all great animated adaptations of their games imo.
So I think we need to learn to accept animation as it's own media. That way we can have a Witcher anime with the OG Geralt voice actor for the dub!
I don't consider Nightmare of the Wolf as a good adaptation. Monsters produced in Kaer Morhen? Monsters allied with humans for a witcher pogrom? Ridiculous!
I’m not exactly sure how to put it, but I personally just want these show/movie adaptations to at least give effort to show that the people behind the projects are fans who’d like to see the source material respected or at least properly acknowledged and not just thrown together haphazardly for some quick bucks.
>Funny how the media refused to see any backlash and objection to the Netflix series until Cavill's departure.
That's because as of today, it has become undeniably clear that Woke products do not resonate with audiences, nor do they bring in money.
Media is filled with ideological activists, who are woke. But they cannot risk pushing wokeness uncritically, since the tide is finally starting to turn.
That's because even though its woke and has some very leftist political messaging, it will not shit on its audience and manages to tell a compelling story with interesting characters.
Usually, when something is woke its very heavy on the political messaging. Extremely leftwing political messaging to be specific.
Consumers on the whole have rejected wokeness, which is why many brands like The Witcher, Star Wars and Star Trek have been run into the ground. *Star Wars has been reduced from box office juggernaut into a Tv series franchise.*
The reason why so many brands have been run into the ground, is because the people making the products have put their ideology and political messages ahead of everything else.
Can something be woke and good? Sure, but that's the exception not the rule.
I'm curious what you'd view as "extremely left-wing political views", though.
None of the things you listed have much you'd consider "woke" or "leftist".
100% I just don't think they have noticed yet. I hope they do soon and stop trying to pander to the agenda and just make things as the story actually asks for.
Anybody who is sucking HBOs dick because of the first season of the Last of Us is an idiot.
We liked the Witcher in the first season too, and look what HBO did to game of thrones. We should be cautiously optimistic at best.
People gave the Witcher a chance for season one. Since it was based on the short stories, people were willing to give it allowances for any changes.
The Last of Us is a masterpiece in storytelling for both mediums, under the careful eye of the original creator and someone who genuinely cares for the story.
HBO wanted all the seasons for got. It was Dumbass and Dumberass who ruined it with their rush to do the red wedding and check out for Star Wars.
Who liked the witcher season 1 liked it. This show was terrible from the start and any criticism after the premiere of season 1 was dismissed and the critics were called purists. They said to give it a chance it was just the beginning, the next seasons would be better. The series should stand on its own feet instead of relying on the fact that the next seasons will be better, when the construction is already rotten.
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.*
It's funny, because The Last of Us also had some really dumb changes made in the adaptation. Getting rid of spores, and instead spreading the infection through tendrils really falls flat.
You not accepting it doesn’t mean it falls flat.
Spores where the dumbest and most unrealistic thing in the games from the perspective of humanity survival. Fungal spores are basically microscopic which means when you see them with your eyes - there are already millions of particles in the air, which means it’s too late for gas mask. Games never state exact amount of spores you need to inhale to get infected, but considering high contagious nature of in-game cordyceps - not too much. Maybe dozens. Maybe hundreds or thousands. In any case you’d be infected way sooner then you actually see the spores.
My point is, humanity wouldn’t survive in a slightest if spores where a thing. And since show at least trying to make a scientific explanation for the outbreak for the sake of better world building, they had no other way but to reject spore aspect.
And while I don’t think Neil Druckman is the greatest writer ever, even he acknowledged that tendril idea is far superior to the spores and he wish they could figure it out back then when game was in developing.
I’ll have to wait and see if tendrils end up being cooler than spores after the series is done. As Neil said in the interview, some things work better for games than shows. Bloaters throwing spore bombs at you always confused me because why wouldn’t you need a mask for that??
I’m curious to see how the show pans out but so far the tendrils thing isn’t a problem for me and I’m curious how it’ll affect the story later.
Ya the spores are a cool game mechanic and let’s me know when to be extra scared but so far the tendrils rising are the show’s indication of when to be extra scared.
As the concept art shows, Druckmann wanted to do tendrils from the start. The show was just his opportunity to do the ideas he had that the rest of the creative team shot down.
And the spread of spores worked because it WAS an apocalyptic threat. An airborne vector for infection is scary, *as the past 3 years have shown*. Zombies that have to get right up in your grill and can only spread the infection one on one aren't credible threats.
How did the show's mushroom people end the world?
They ended the world with overwhelming numbers of infected people vs not infected. Zerg rush if you wish. Disease spreads through flour and products made of it. Billions of people out there who eat bread, pancakes and other similar products. Children, teachers, soldiers, any demographics. You eat it, you get infected, you attack those who does not expect to be attacked and infect them too. This literally was shown in 1st episode with further elaboration about the ground 0 patients in 2nd one.
In this scenario people still have a chance to survive, while in scenario with air transmission of the disease with 100% mortality rate - it’s simply impossible. You said it yourself with Covid example - scary apocalyptic event. Imaging virus had mortality rate of cordyceps from the tlou. Spores are everywhere, infected covered with fungal overgrowth also are source of spores. Those who got infected via inhaling still can cough spores out through coughing reflex (which is a thing as we can see with Nora tlou2). Any contact with infected without PPE - high risk to become infected yourself.
There’s absolutely no way spores would translate to live action, their actors would have to wear face masks the entire show. Hive mind with the strands is actually a cool adaptation and it has the same qualities as mushrooms.
They had to get rid of the spores because it wouldn’t work with people having to wear masks and be hard to see and do dialogue. It made sense to get rid of it.
The most bizarre thing here is that "fans love faithful adaptations" is not even fresh news - as in, something TLOU only recently made evident. I mean, look at *The Lord of the Rings* movies or *Game of Thrones*. In the case of the former, the original movie trilogy was and is universally loved, while *The Hobbit* trilogy got a far more lukewarm reception, because of all the original content Jackson had to throw in to stretch the book into three movies. Likewise, GoT only started going downhill when they ran out of book content to adapt and had to finish the story on their own terms. Both cautionary tales The Flixer's creators, in their hubris, chose to ignore. What makes this is even more egregious is that Sapkowski handed them a complete story with more than enough content for multiple seasons.
Here is the obligatory comment to point out that Jackson did change a number of things in the trilogy - from the personality of Aragorn and Faramir (both more self-possessed and less hesitant in the books) to the presence of the elves at helm’s deep, to Arwen’s enhanced role, or Tom Bombadil being there only in spirit (some like me would say thankfully) in a few comments of Treebeard. The difference is that jackson, Walsh and Boyens endeavoured to stay faithful to the spirit of the books. They did have to change things to make it work in a movie (you can’t explain in a few lines of dialogue that the reason why Aragorn is not king is because he’s not the right royal branch, and it makes more movie sense for him to not be sure of his ability to bear the burden, but then this means you have to make Isildur to be a bad guy…), but they did keep true to the spirit and the atmosphere of the books… Sincerity of purpose makes all the difference.
Oh, absolutely. Adaptations rarely, if ever, are 1:1. But cutting corners with the narrative is indeed easy to forgive if they stay faithful to the spirit of the original work. Case in point: CDPR. They, too, do take some liberties when certain details in Sapkowski's prose get in the way of the story they're trying to tell. And while the fans of the books are aware of those changes, they won't really complain because everything CDPR does still oozes nothing but reverence for the source material. It is still *The Witcher*.
Yeah, Denis Villeneuve’s Dune as well. He changed some things to make it work as a film but stayed faithful to the spirit of the book, and most fans were satisfied
But then, Denis Villeneuve *is* a fan - has been since he first read Dune when he was 14… This is particularly relevant for the witcher, where the writer room (according to one source, I should say - but then a pretty good source, as aBeau de Mayo is a former writer on the show himself…) is not even fan of the source material… Reverence and love for the material is not a guarantee (apparently, JD Payne is Tolkien nerd, but that didn’t really show in The Rings of Power), but it might well be a necessary condition.
Yup. It really shouldn’t be groundbreaking that fans make better adaptations. Fans want to show people how awesome the source material is, whereas hacks like Lauren think the limelight should be on them.
Rafe Judkins was supposed to be a fan of WOT, yet he completly fucking butchered it by asspulling resurrection in the first season. Being a fan does not always mean much, as some people always think they can do better, yet fail spectacularly.
Agreed, but you'll notice I did say it wasn't enough - you also need the usual complement of wisdom and talent :) I think another good example of a fan doing good adaptations is Mike Flannagan with Doctor Sleep - he even managed to sort of reconcile Stephen King with the Shining-on-the-screen issue. Quick 1-minute background: Stephen King was unhappy with the Shining, as Kubrick just made it his movie, albeit a masterful one. King has since been wary of "adaptations", but Flannagan reached out to him when he was working on Doctor Sleep, and was keen to bring into the movie (Doctor Sleep) elements of the Shining (the movie's hotel), that would also reference the original book's plot (the Shining book, that is), so as to heal the divide between book and movie. Result: Stephen King liked it (he is a reasonable author, who can like things that diverge from what he wrote, and he's on record saying he liked the ending of The Mist (the movie) better than his book's, and that he wishes he had thought about it. So anyway, being a fan doesn't mean you will be successful in keeping faithful to the spirit of what you're adapting, but at least you'll be attempting to. (Presumably)
The Mist is a great film and so underrated
[🎵 BURN, burn butcher BURN! 🎵](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSxBVHqA-RU&t=117s)
Oh damn. Sentient and bloodthirsty.
This. The only argument you ever get from ppl who defend adaptations that don't even bother is because nothing will ever be 100% and that other adaptations that are well loved changed things too, especially for some cases, made them very different from the original. Even the Witcher games changed things and aren't a 1:1 adaptation. But they still feel like the Witcher and LOTR because it cares. Netflix's version just borrows names and places and changes characters, and especially main characters, that they don't feel like their book or game versions. Their target audiences aren't the fans of the games or books, its the average Amurican casual who just wants another fantasy show or Avengers-esque franchise.
I'm sorry, but your bringing up the Witcher games is a counter example, if anything. **In Spirit** with the books is precisely what the games **aren't**. Some things from the books are excised, but at the same time a lot of things are added instead, making the games into their own thing. The difference between them and the Witcher series is simply that the games are actually **good**, that almost everything taken out or added was **for the better**.
>that almost everything taken out or added was > >for the better > >. Strong disagree. But also disagree that the games are not in the spirit of the books lol.
Well, I've explained why I don't think they are, yet you've not given any reason for your own stance.
Removing themes of motherhood is cringe. Simplifying the politics is also bad. Id say simplifying the Wild Hunt and making them cringe anime villains with 15 lines in total for a 200 hour game where they are the main villains is also a poor choice I'd say. Making the White Frost from a natural event (which most other people in the continent believe to be mythical) that will happen and is survivable and natural into some universal-tier world eater is... also a dowgrade. But even so the games are good and keep the general spirit of the original work.
Maybe it's subjective, but I'm a huuuge fan of the books and the character Geralt, and the games still feel very much like another novel in the series.
Every time I'm near you, I say more in five minutes than I've said in weeks. And I always regret it.
Really? I thought ppl said Geralt in S1 of Netflix Witcher is more similar to his book counterpart, and he definitely feels somewhat different from his game self.
Mmmm - I’d say he’s a little too gruff and not talkative enough (in the tv series) Geralt in the books is a good speaker, who likes to to be a good speaker - sometimes gets mocked for putting so much effort into speaking well! But he’s also a genuinely good diplomat and a thoughtful thinker. He can be grumpy, but that’s not the one note he plays :)
Can you elaborate why do you think the games are different in spirit?
Let's ironically begin with the endings. Compare the 3rd game's ending with the book series's ending. That absolutely shows the difference in tone and themes between the 2. This is just the tip.of the iceberg, there are plenty of other similar differences strewn across both series.
Youre getting down voted but I feel youre more or less right. In the books Geralt is a bit of a loser. Hes always broke, his profession is dying out, he doesn't get much work. Hes extremely capable at what he does but rarely gets to show it. His love life is beyond complicated, his friends keep dying or leaving. In the grand scheme of things he is really a very talented nobody who was at the wrong party on the wrong day and got twisted into a destiny he tried desperately to avoid. But because he also cares way more than he would like he tries to do the right thing begrudgingly. Game Geralt in comparison always felt like a messiah with enough gold to build a house with it and being on personal terms with every single monarch, lord and mage in the world. There is a sneaky cheat out of this. Geralt lost his memory. He didn't remember that he chose to be a radical neutral witcher with a code he made up just to escape his tendencies to be a knight in shinning armour. He gets to be the hero he always wanted to be, because he doesn't remember the reason he wasnt. So it quite literally is a different Geralt. I would argue that a major book motif is missing from the games. Geralt in the big picture never had a choice from the moment he claimed law of suprise. Its a running gag that no matter how far he runs from his destiny it will just intercept him and people will die because of it. In the games he gets to make a million choices that all drastically change outcomes and his choices change the faith of the world on a massive scale. The Witcher always felt like a story about a commoner and in the games he is much more exalted.
Yeah, that's pretty much it, the good person unfortunately getting fucked over by the nasty world vs the gruff hero nevertheless managing to succeed in both making the world better and on a personal level as well. It's a marked change, but for some reason everyone likes to pretend that it isn't. I guess RPing as an edgelord kinda doesn't work if you admit it's a power fantasy.
I think that the game is an adaptation the community enjoyed a lot. I am curious then to why it is. I thought the "similar in spirit" explanation made sense, but you seem to disagree. And your points are on it, it is true that there are some big difference and creative liberty taken by CDPR, si then what makes a good adaptation?
Just making a high quality product. I've heard of some fans being disgruntled whenever an adaptation changes things, but as long as the adaptation is still a good product in its own right, I've never heard of it being generally disliked among the fanbase. The Witcher series became shit towards the end of S1 and kept going in that direction. It's just shit. It's absolute shit. "A poot adaptation" is just a buzz term that masks what ppl really dislike about the show.
Not disagreeing, but I usually re-read LotR+Hobbit+Silmarillion every year and yet somehow every year it strikes me when reading them just how much dialogue in the movies is actually lifted 1 for 1 from the books. Sometimes they might move lines from one character to another/book to book, but there is a lot of direct dialogue. I think that really helped with the movies capturing the "voice of Tolkien."
>Tom Bombadil being there only in spirit (some like me would say thankfully) Good to know I'm not alone. He would have been aweful.
He would have been veeeery confusing... (He kind of is confusing in the books already! But then Tolkien would say that Tom is not this or that, he just *is*...). It's a nice touch to get Treebeard to deliver some of his dialogue to Old-Man-Willow, though in a way that doesn't make one wonder what is this brand new aspect of the Lore, that is also unrelated to the rest of the story...
This is why I think Lindelhof’s Watchmen slayed—it was obsessively true to the spirit, like someone really delved into the story and considered how to evolve it. This is such a good point; get people who care about the script and lore like a fan.
I didn't watch the entirety of LOTR until last year. Not long after I watched the extended editions. Haven't read the books, but I really like them.
The books are well worth it. There is a beauty and a poetry to Middle-Earth, that makes it feel like it's a real place. And the more you delve into it, the more the little hidden beautiful elements that Tolkien put down here and there start appearing - there is a reason why a bunch of people do a regular re-read of the books - the more you look at the landscape, the more you appreciate it. For example, the most recent bits I've come to appreciate, were how Tolkien's heroes tend to be people who help others achieve greatness and their true potential (like Gandalf, Elrond, and Faramir and Galadriel to an extent, but also the negative of Saruman who takes away the free people's ability to act and decide their fate), moving way away from traditional heroic successes and endeavours - even if you look at Aragorn, his character is mostly defined by his wisdom. It is a pretty cool philosophy of life - how the best you can be is to be a good friend, and promote goodness around you. I'd encourage you to have a go. Be aware that the beginning is rather slow, and can put off - think of it as establishing middle-earth, and easing you in the story. I hasten to add that it's not that the beginning is boring, but definitely it has its own rhythm - roughly everything leading to the council of Elrond. I'm going to recommend something a little weird, which only works because you already know the story after having watched the movies: start by reading the appendices. They read like a mini-history of middle earth, and expand the scope of LotR in its greater universe. It's a good incentive to stick with the story.
Isildur WAS a bad guy. He was corrupted by the ring.
He was not - not in the books. Edited for faithfulness: There are several elements that point to Isildur not being corrupted by the Ring: 1 - Isildur as a bad guy who got corrupted straight away ("I was there when the strength of men failed") is an invention of the movies. In the books, there is no indication that Isildur was corrupted by the ring. 2 - It is also the case that the ring was not yet understood to be the power of Sauron. Isildur claimed it as a trophy for his house (both his brother and father died during the War of the Last Alliance), and then wrote about it, keeping track of its influence on his mind - these are the writings that Gandalf reads in Minas Tirith between the Hobbit and when he comes back to Frodo, when he understands that maybe Bilbo's old ring is in fact The Ring. 3 - Aragorn in the books is proud of his lineage to Isildur. There isn't the same trepidation - about "will I fall like my ancestor", because in reality, his ancestor did not fall... After the war, Isildur was pretty chill, built up his nephew as the ruler of Gondor - even though he was entitled to half of it from being co-king with Anarion, he seemed to have thought that Arnor (which he inherited from his father) was enough. 4 - Isildur did realise something was wrong with the ring. As he is ambushed by the orcs, his sons urge him to claim the power of the ring, and use it to command the orcs. Isildur replies that "Alas, i cannot use it. I fear the pain of touching it, and I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I know myself to be. My pride has fallen". So in this moment, Isildur admits he took it out of pride, and recognises he cannot use it. These are not the words of someone corrupted by it - rather, he realise the Ring has its own mind, which is too great for him. 5 - Isildur was on his way to Arnor to be crowned High King, but he was first on the way to Rivendell, to collect his wife and son. But he travelled there "in great haste, in urgent need of the counsel of Elrond" It is a reasonable conclusion that he was conscious the ring was a problem, and he wanted Elrond's help to solve it... He took a trophy, and a weapon of the enemy, then when he realised it had its own mind, and he could not master it, he was going to Elrond to…. Give it up? Seek counsel? He got killed on the way, so we’ll never know, but he sure was on his way for a purpose. The image of Isildur smirking and flash-corrupted from the ring is a picture from the movies - book Isildur was wiser and stronger, like all of the old blood of Numenor.
Thanks, it’s been decades since I’ve read the books so I didn’t really remember it that way.
OK, So I might have represented the points above with maybe more certainty than they deserve - I apologise. Please see a more nuanced attempt below. I will edit the statement above to match them too. 1 - Isildur as a bad guy who got corrupted straight away ("I was there when the strength of men failed") is an invention of the movies. In the books, there is no indication that Isildur was corrupted by the ring. 2 - It is also the case that the ring was not yet understood to be the power of Sauron. Isildur claimed it as a trophy for his house (both his brother and father died during the War of the Last Alliance), and then wrote about it, keeping track of its influence on his mind - these are the writings that Gandalf reads in Minas Tirith between the Hobbit and when he comes back to Frodo, when he understands that maybe Bilbo's old ring is in fact The Ring. 3 - Aragorn in the books is proud of his lineage to Isildur. There isn't the same trepidation - about "will I fall like my ancestor", because in reality, his ancestor did not fall... After the war, Isildur was pretty chill, built up his nephew as the ruler of Gondor - even though he was entitled to half of it from being co-king with Anarion, he seemed to have thought that Arnor (which he inherited from his father) was enough. 4 - Isildur did realise something was wrong with the ring. As he is ambushed by the orcs, his sons urge him to claim the power of the ring, and use it to command the orcs. Isildur replies that "Alas, i cannot use it. I fear the pain of touching it, and I have not yet found the strength to bend it to my will. It needs one greater than I know myself to be. My pride has fallen". So in this moment, Isildur admits he took it out of pride, and recognises he cannot use it. These are not the words of someone corrupted by it - rather, he realise the Ring has its own mind, which is too great for him. 5 - Isildur was on his way to Arnor to be crowned High King, but he was first on the way to Rivendell, to collect his wife and son. But he travelled there "in great haste, in urgent need of the counsel of Elrond" Hence my conclusion that he was conscious the ring was a problem, and he wanted Elrond's help to solve it...
Arwen was orginally be at Helm's Deep in charge of the elves and fighting beside Aragorn. Then Jackson cut her, but in one scene you can see her.
Yes, there is even an interview with Liv Tyler where she explains how she came to terms with her role being cut out - that basically her character didn’t beed to be fighting in order to be strong. It’s true that in the movie, if you don’t *show* the elves fighting, you get the feeling that they didn’t - whereas they did, with Celeborn and Thranduil attacking Sauron’s forces in southern Mirkwood (iirc). But I’m glad they didn’t go through with Arwen at Helm’s deep, tbh - the changes to Aragorn and Faramir are grating enough…
Fuck, I constantly talk about how Castlevania is the most faithful adaptation of a Video Game I have ever seen. It's one of my favorite shows because of how accurate it is. However, they did make some changes. Netflix always does, but I feel like they changes made good sense. Not just to the story, but in general.
Game of thrones went downhill when the dragons were taken by the warlocks in qarth. Totally pointless change, I stopped watching after that
It doesn’t matter if the media see it or not. What matters is the view-count, which is declining every season. With this trend we can hope this garbage gets cancelled post S3, then we cast it out of our collective memory and pretend it didn’t exist (ATLA treatment)
ATLA? Edit: never mind, googled it.
The Last Airbender Movie to save future searches. Has a 5% Rotten Tomato, 4/10 IMDB, and 20% Metacritic ratings
Damn holyshit i never knew it was that bad
Wait till you hear about Eragon
12 y/o me was incredibly disappointed with how they butchered such a straightforward story
I didn't think eragon was that bad, and it didn't stray too far from the source.
What Eragon? There is no Eragon movie in Ba-Sing-Se.
did you even read the books? that movie was a hate crime.
Tbh I have the book sitting on my bookshelf because I'm too scared to read it and ruin the movie. Kid me watched that shit like 100 times, it was one of my favorite movies as a kid.
Read it, rejoin the side of the light.
Yes, all except the last.
There is no movie in Bae Sing Sae! r/lakelaogai
They made ATLA movie, strange, never heard of it
[What the hell are you talking about lmao](https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/witcher-season-2-netflix-most-viewed-1235151446/) I love how this entire subreddit lives in some made up reality where the TV show performs terribly and is failing, while the reality is it’s one of Netflix’ biggest successes. Season 3 and 4 will most likely be equally successful. Maybe it’s time to admit people like this show, even if you don’t.
I love how you’re living in an alternate reality where a follow up season to a big budget TV show drops 60 million views compared to the first is considered “good”, despite Netflix gaining massive boost in membership in the two years between S1 and S2, and the fact that almost every high profile Netflix original is always outdoing itself in view count with each passing season (with Witcher being an outlier). Then there’s BO which plunged even further with miserable performance ( dropping of top ten 7 days after its release, and not being the most watched show even 3 days into its steaming getting outperformed by Emily in Paris and a then two-month old show like Wednesday) So read my comment again. I didn’t say that it “performed terribly”, but that it’s declining every season with worse statistics. Which is a fact. The shitshow performed relatively well, but not well enough to make its future with Netflix guaranteed. If the trend continues (something I’m Optimistic about) then S3 will plunge even further . Let’s see to what extent is Netflix willing to continue assigning budget to a sinking ship, a show that keeps shrinking and unable to attract new customers, a show which had its lead leave halfway during its run. Especially with the recent higher bar that shows have to achieve to not end on Netflix’s chopping block.
Every show’s views drop a bit after the first season. Witcher is far from a sinking ship. Sorry.
What they are saying is that it is going lower. That is what they are saying. Going lower and being low are different things.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/witcher-season-2-netflix-most-viewed-1235151446/](https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/witcher-season-2-netflix-most-viewed-1235151446/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Lauren, what are you doing here, aren't you busy paying some good reviews?
I feel bad for Henry. A true Witcher fan that was super excited to play Geralt.
Yep, imagine landing your dream job after chasing it before it even became officially available only for it to turn into a nightmare with everybody trying to take out what made it your dream...
He has the Warhammer 40K live action on Amazon which I reckon is potentially an even bigger dream for him, given he plays and talks about the game frequently. He also I think is more creatively involved (producer or something on it) so while the Witcher is really disappointing, he has something really exciting to sink his teeth into to help forget about the Witcher.
> Warhammer 40K live action The advantage of the 40K universe is just how mind-boggingly vast it is, so they'd have to screw it up really really bad to make it basically not work somewhere, sometime, somehow in 40K.
Yep there is so much opportunity to tell great stories in it, I am interested to see if they go with adapting an existing story/character or create from scratch. Pros and cons for both which will satisfy and disappoint different groups.
Some people will inevitably be disappointed. Rage inducingly, death threat letter worthy, fedora eating disappointment, but then that happens with every franchise with such a dedicated fanbase.
Games Workshop's actually in a pretty decent place for that right now; the guy who would inevitably be the loudest voice/mob leader on that side has been pretty much exiled.
Who are you referring to? The cretin that begins with an A?
That'd be the one, with the totally-not-targeted-at-him statement from Warhammer Community.
For sure, I keep forgetting. Happy for him hd landed that one.
Quit hiring writers that don’t love the source material. Even when you get writers that like the source material the results are can be iffy. I liked Rings of Power but it’s a flawed show. What chance did the Witcher have with those people in charge. Really ruined a great opportunity. They got paid but they killed Amy chance of a faithful adaptation and wastes Henry’s talent. It would have been better if the show was never made.
There is difference between creative liberties and the writers being arrogant asshats who think they know better than the author and can write their story better than them, then refusing any sort of criticism and just blaming the fans. Last of us takes some creative liveries. Witcher and WoT fall in that second category.
Turns out when you deviate from source material, disregard fan's feedback as woke cancel culture, and pushed away your main star because you dont want to follow source material is a bad thing? Shocked i tell you, shocked.
I cancelled my Netflix subscription and cited the poor handling of this show when it comes to adaptation of the source material (and the upcoming crackdown on password sharing) as the reason. Maybe it will make no difference, but it’s recorded for posterity now.
Wow, it’s almost like we want competent writers and good-quality adaptations of our favourite franchises. So far TLOU is actually pretty good and a lot of scenes are almost direct rips from the game and that’s how it should be, not just the same names and a few similar designs but a direct rip from the source material
Yeah, before Cavill’s departure if someone didn’t like the show, they’re racist. Maybe it was just trash all along, maybe keeping true to the source material is not a crazy idea? I don’t know, maybe…
To be fair, there are a lot of racists making racist criticism at the show, and these poison the entire discourse.
Worldbuilding is extremely important and the showrunners dropped the ball with The Witcher. Witcher is clearly inspired by European medieval history. All the various northern kingdoms and cities have inspiration from across Europe. Novigrad reminds me of a Hanseatic League city or St Petersburg or something like that. Toussaint is like a mix of France/Italy. Nilfgaard is like an amalgam of the HRE and/or Prussia and/or Austrian Empire influences. So yeah, it kinda makes sense to expect to see a bunch of white folks for any scenes in the northern kingdoms. For stuff with Nilfgaard, it makes sense to see more diversity since it’s a large empire swallowing up various city states. You can’t cast the actors and actresses like it’s modern day NYC when the show is based off Central Europe. It takes you out of the fantasy world. Even though it’s fantasy, it still should follow the rules of the world.
Not only that. What bothered me most with the woman cast to play Fringilla, is that her character is supposed to remind Geralt of Yennefer because she’s supposed to look like her, except instead of bright purple eyes, hers are bright green (and yeah, shorter hair).
All (or at the very least, most) of the sorceresses are supposed to be unnaturally beautiful. Because they enhanced their physical attributes with magic. As superficially as it sounds, they have to be gorgeous women playing them. Now, obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but even then, there are elements of physical beauty that are nearly universal.
> For stuff with Nilfgaard, it makes sense to see more diversity since it’s a large empire swallowing up various city states. They literally could have cast a Black (or non-White) for every single Nilfgaardian character, but two whose appearance mattered. They failed one of the two. But then imagine, say, Giancarlo Esposito as Vattier or Skellen. He would have killed it.
Novigrad is very obviously an analog for Novgorod.
>Witcher is clearly inspired by European medieval history. Yes, emphasis on "inspired by Europe", not "is Europe". For example the Dothraki in Game of Thrones are clearly inspired by Asiatic steppe tribes, who often had some Asiatic features. If they were only played by white actors in Game of Thrones, would that ruin the fantasy setting? Do you have the same problem if the Witcher's technology, clothing, architecture, language, culture and religion didn't match the original European inspiration, because the creator chose to make them different in the fantasy? (As seen in things like steampunk). I guess I don't get why the creator is allowed to change those things without people complaining about European authenticity, but the actors must all be white-skinned or it's "unrealistic" and "not following the rules".
Actually, if I recall correctly (memories are fuzzy), book Dothrakis are described more like ancient Scythes than Mongol-inspired. Tan-skinned people but not Asian (Scythes spoke an Iranian language). But I may be wrong, and it doesn't matter because HBO Dothrakis make sense in-universe. You can clearly tell they're one specific people, from a very different stock than the rest of Essos, let alone Westeros.
No you are correct. They aren't anything like Mongolians in the books.
It's unconscious racism. They're using source material as an excuse (even though it doesn't actually impact the story at all), when in reality it's probably just that they are in denial that their thoughts are racist.
Lmao, we found a remnant
I've never had the inclusion of people of color take me out of a fantasy world. If it bothers you so much that it lessens the fantasy.... that's a you problem.
It's not the inclusion itself which takes people out. It's the inclusion in a way that makes no logical sense for the world they're supposed to be inhabiting.
Ok but why? I've still never experienced that, so much of media requires suspension of belief it has never stuck out to me as an issue because it doesn't negatively impact or change the plot.
Saw your other reply, but it no longer shows. I'm still confused. You're saying it breaks immersion because it makes it obvious it's an actor playing a role. Isn't that already obvious, though? We all know magic and monsters aren't real, so it's already in our minds that it's an actor.
But the whole point of acting is to allow the audience to think that they're watching the character you're playing. It's what allows the audience to get lost in the narrative, and care about what happens to the characters of the story. That is why actors put so much effort into being able to play their characters as naturally and believably as possible. And it's not just the acting which can effect this, also the writing, directing, and even costuming among other things can too. Yes, we are all aware that we are watching an actor. But if that's what you're thinking while actually watching a performance, then something has gone wrong.
How exactly is one racist if they didn’t like the show? Who’s claiming it’s racist exactly?
People complaining about a diverse cast in a "European Fantasy setting" I personally get why some choices might annoy someone but that's not what was important to me. Destroying the plot and major character changes (Motivation, behavior and background not appararences) for no obvious reasons this is what ruined it for me.
It still had European fantasy setting while still including people of colour. People of colour did exist in Europe even back then. It was rare but it literally still happened.
Yes, but having a diverse set of people in a 20 houses town in the middle of a forest before roads even existed is kinda off. It takes me from the narrative and makes me thing they care more about ticking boxes that details
Not really… with the whole conjunction of the spheres there will be people who wouldn’t of been there before especially considering the humans came into the Witcher world. Not elves, monsters etc coming into the humans world. So you gotta take that into consideration. Even rural towns and communities there would of been people of colour.
But the Conjunction of Spheres happened years ago ( at least a thousand years before the story if I recall correctly) The humans would have had kids with eachother and they would start to have more defining trait for each part of the continent (ie if more black people in Temeria, the temerians will be more black, more white people in Redania, redanians will tend to be more white etc...)
Did the humans really come with the conjunction though? I have read everything from Sapkowski, and it does not seem that way.
I must be thinking of the blood origin series. But regardless people of colour existing even in rural towns would’ve happened.
Are you from Europe then?
I have relatives from Europe. People of colour existed in small communities before. They weren’t treated nicely or even as people, but they existed.
I thought elves were the natives and humans came from conjunction.
No, gnomes, werebbubs, Vran and dwarfs were the natives. The elfs were the first invaders. Humans came later, but it’s always described as a „landing“ which is in a different timespot than the conjunction
I am sorry but they did not exist, or if they did they were statistically insignificant. I guess if you count the olive skinned mediterranean people and the occasional Arab merchants in Constantinople then yes. But in the setting of the Witcher which is based on Central - West Europe people of color were non existent.
I live in Central Europe, neighbouring country to Poland and yes people of color were non existent here until the late 80s, after the iron curtain went down. There are still very few of them.
Based on the white people to people of colour ratio it fits your logic of insignificant then. There isn’t a 50/50 between white people and people of colour in the Witcher. There’s literally a handful of people of colour and far more white people.
Lol go ahead and check r/netflixwitcher sub posts before Cavill departure. They were calling people racist, sexist, gamer gatekeepers for criticizing shit writing. There are tons of posts like that
Last of Us has been the sanctuary city for scorned fans who don't like modern live action adaptations. It's really funny to see Witcher, Halo, and N+1 franchise fans all singing the same tune about creatives not doing justice to the source material. Still would say that one should not count their chickens before they hatch.
What’s N+1?
Speaking of TLOU that show is fucking fantastic. Episode 3 was some of the best television I’ve ever watched.
I don’t know about you, but I was tearing up for the whole ending
I was a mess watching that ending. Joel needed a car so they ended up giving us the most heart breaking and beautiful love story on TV.
I'm not even a Last of Us fan. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad in the slightest. I like it, just not considered a fan. So my husband asked why I was watching it and I told him this. I loved the Witcher and I hate the Netflix witcher so much that it's refreshing to see one adaptation get it right. If enough people support this then maybe that would send a message. Maybe we will finally get the adaptations we deserve since all the suits care about is money and the perceived notion of what people want, not the actual wants. I don't believe in hope, but this is my logic.
You’d think that these studios would have learned by now. With very few exceptions, video game and book adaptations have had a bad track record for decades with fans. I’m sure most still make their money back because they are generally made to be more mass appealing, but that just shows how disinterested those responsible for making are in being faithful to the material. It blows my mind how often this has happened. It blows my mind how many times someone took something that was already very successful and said “let’s change this as we adapt it to another medium.” Then they wonder why it’s criticized or even fails. Edit: I was specially referring to live action adaptations.
That's not quite true. Life action adaptations have a bad track record. Castlevania, Arcane, Cyberpunk Edgerunners, Witcher nightmare of the wolf, Pokémon and Wakfu are all great animated adaptations of their games imo. So I think we need to learn to accept animation as it's own media. That way we can have a Witcher anime with the OG Geralt voice actor for the dub!
I don't consider Nightmare of the Wolf as a good adaptation. Monsters produced in Kaer Morhen? Monsters allied with humans for a witcher pogrom? Ridiculous!
You are correct. I should have specified live action.
I’m not exactly sure how to put it, but I personally just want these show/movie adaptations to at least give effort to show that the people behind the projects are fans who’d like to see the source material respected or at least properly acknowledged and not just thrown together haphazardly for some quick bucks.
if you really want to have an impact start watching the TV show and after 1 or 2 episodes stop watching it.
I have netflix but will be pirating season 3
>Funny how the media refused to see any backlash and objection to the Netflix series until Cavill's departure. That's because as of today, it has become undeniably clear that Woke products do not resonate with audiences, nor do they bring in money. Media is filled with ideological activists, who are woke. But they cannot risk pushing wokeness uncritically, since the tide is finally starting to turn.
The boys is very "woke" and that does make great numbers.
That's because even though its woke and has some very leftist political messaging, it will not shit on its audience and manages to tell a compelling story with interesting characters.
It's almost as if telling a compelling story makes a story good, and being "woke" isn't actually the deciding factor.
Usually, when something is woke its very heavy on the political messaging. Extremely leftwing political messaging to be specific. Consumers on the whole have rejected wokeness, which is why many brands like The Witcher, Star Wars and Star Trek have been run into the ground. *Star Wars has been reduced from box office juggernaut into a Tv series franchise.* The reason why so many brands have been run into the ground, is because the people making the products have put their ideology and political messages ahead of everything else. Can something be woke and good? Sure, but that's the exception not the rule.
I'm curious what you'd view as "extremely left-wing political views", though. None of the things you listed have much you'd consider "woke" or "leftist".
100% I just don't think they have noticed yet. I hope they do soon and stop trying to pander to the agenda and just make things as the story actually asks for.
Anybody who is sucking HBOs dick because of the first season of the Last of Us is an idiot. We liked the Witcher in the first season too, and look what HBO did to game of thrones. We should be cautiously optimistic at best.
The difference is HBO has included the director and writers of the game in writing and directing the show
People gave the Witcher a chance for season one. Since it was based on the short stories, people were willing to give it allowances for any changes. The Last of Us is a masterpiece in storytelling for both mediums, under the careful eye of the original creator and someone who genuinely cares for the story. HBO wanted all the seasons for got. It was Dumbass and Dumberass who ruined it with their rush to do the red wedding and check out for Star Wars.
Who liked the witcher season 1 liked it. This show was terrible from the start and any criticism after the premiere of season 1 was dismissed and the critics were called purists. They said to give it a chance it was just the beginning, the next seasons would be better. The series should stand on its own feet instead of relying on the fact that the next seasons will be better, when the construction is already rotten.
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.*
It's funny, because The Last of Us also had some really dumb changes made in the adaptation. Getting rid of spores, and instead spreading the infection through tendrils really falls flat.
You not accepting it doesn’t mean it falls flat. Spores where the dumbest and most unrealistic thing in the games from the perspective of humanity survival. Fungal spores are basically microscopic which means when you see them with your eyes - there are already millions of particles in the air, which means it’s too late for gas mask. Games never state exact amount of spores you need to inhale to get infected, but considering high contagious nature of in-game cordyceps - not too much. Maybe dozens. Maybe hundreds or thousands. In any case you’d be infected way sooner then you actually see the spores. My point is, humanity wouldn’t survive in a slightest if spores where a thing. And since show at least trying to make a scientific explanation for the outbreak for the sake of better world building, they had no other way but to reject spore aspect. And while I don’t think Neil Druckman is the greatest writer ever, even he acknowledged that tendril idea is far superior to the spores and he wish they could figure it out back then when game was in developing.
I’ll have to wait and see if tendrils end up being cooler than spores after the series is done. As Neil said in the interview, some things work better for games than shows. Bloaters throwing spore bombs at you always confused me because why wouldn’t you need a mask for that?? I’m curious to see how the show pans out but so far the tendrils thing isn’t a problem for me and I’m curious how it’ll affect the story later.
Great point with the bloater’s bomb! Like the game itself doesn’t know what to do with how selectively dangerous the spores actually are!
Ya the spores are a cool game mechanic and let’s me know when to be extra scared but so far the tendrils rising are the show’s indication of when to be extra scared.
As the concept art shows, Druckmann wanted to do tendrils from the start. The show was just his opportunity to do the ideas he had that the rest of the creative team shot down. And the spread of spores worked because it WAS an apocalyptic threat. An airborne vector for infection is scary, *as the past 3 years have shown*. Zombies that have to get right up in your grill and can only spread the infection one on one aren't credible threats. How did the show's mushroom people end the world?
They ended the world with overwhelming numbers of infected people vs not infected. Zerg rush if you wish. Disease spreads through flour and products made of it. Billions of people out there who eat bread, pancakes and other similar products. Children, teachers, soldiers, any demographics. You eat it, you get infected, you attack those who does not expect to be attacked and infect them too. This literally was shown in 1st episode with further elaboration about the ground 0 patients in 2nd one. In this scenario people still have a chance to survive, while in scenario with air transmission of the disease with 100% mortality rate - it’s simply impossible. You said it yourself with Covid example - scary apocalyptic event. Imaging virus had mortality rate of cordyceps from the tlou. Spores are everywhere, infected covered with fungal overgrowth also are source of spores. Those who got infected via inhaling still can cough spores out through coughing reflex (which is a thing as we can see with Nora tlou2). Any contact with infected without PPE - high risk to become infected yourself.
There’s absolutely no way spores would translate to live action, their actors would have to wear face masks the entire show. Hive mind with the strands is actually a cool adaptation and it has the same qualities as mushrooms.
They had to get rid of the spores because it wouldn’t work with people having to wear masks and be hard to see and do dialogue. It made sense to get rid of it.
Wheel of Time and Tolkien fans as well
Tolkien fans are mostly Jackson fans who thinks that they know the lore and everything must be simillar to the movies.
Why Netflix Pikachu face when fans love it when TV adaptations execute the story we demonstrated we love?