Why do they have to blackwash everything nowadays. SMH. Unwatchable now.
Why do they have to blackwash everything nowadays. SMH. Unwatchable now.
Go back two pages.
If you're not one of the few children in here crying about their porcelain sensibilities being broken, then there's no need for you to be engaging with this because it's not about you. I'm startled by the amount of racists in here claiming there were no black people outside of Mediterranean Europe and putting in my two cents on the matter because quite frankly it's appalling.
sorry to burst your bublle but in books he f...ks both in fact he also f...ks fringilla and many others -_- and some wouldnt mind to f..ck with him even "it it was on a hedghog"
and thats not why the story got butchered.
if you read books you would know that they completly changed for example the geralt x ciri meetings , geralt first return to cinitra after he left etc etc. whole nilfgard got portrait as basickly bolshewik revolution when in books it was portrait completly different . there are milion things that got changed to fit stupid narrative about "stronk " Yen mattering much.
do yourself a favour and read books they are very good unlike this woke abomination that got produced.
I have never played a Witcher game I hate single player games, But I am on I think the 3rd or 4th episode of this series and I am thoroughly enjoying it.
Enjoyed the story. Thought the acting overall was solid. Looked great, for the most part, on screen. Good stuff : 8/10 for me.
I know, nor i'm saying that's the reason, they were just 2 different statements.
Note: But if i remember well, you do stay with 1 of them or none
I think its quite good, but its also really likely that i'm not bothered by it because i have nothing to compare it with.do yourself a favour and read books they are very good unlike this woke abomination that got produced.
Note: To be truthfull, i won't really bother to read the book (I like games, and i'm not even interested on playing that game -the gameplay is not my thing-)
1. people complaining about "forced diversity" i mainly americans.
2. you are so breathtakingly wrong about there being no black africans in Europe, its almost funny. they DID in fact travel to Europe much earlier then that. a 2 minute google search brought up sources to peruse if you so wish https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/619
3. while lack of east asians IS pretty glaring to me (and it is ironic that they seem to be unaware just how often east asian features show up in eastern Europe), having all these black characters is STILl not even slightly an issue. why? cause majority of them are sorcerers and Dryads. 2 groups that notoriously bring in people from all over the place to fill in their ranks. as I said. this is a world where portals are used by magic users EXTENSIVELY. the bigger problem here is expectation of certain people that witcher's world should look liliwhite. considering that while the world maybe based on eastern Europe, its NOT actualy historical eastern Europe.
basically, I find this hyper focus on skin tone very telling.
P.S. this is not a reply to you, but... they have absolutely NO obligation to cast these characters to look like the game. NONE. ESPECIALLY since the game is chock full of inaccurate portrayals vs book descriptions. its literally ironic to me that for all the complains about Triss - she is more book accurate in a show than in the game (the flaming red hair is CD Project Red invention). I love it that Yennefer has actual violet eyes and is tiny, especially next to Geralt. its something that is constantly remarked on in a book, how small she is, even in heels. in a game she is WAY too statuesque.
Last edited by Witchblade77; 2019-12-23 at 04:07 PM.
Yen's story must take place over more like a century in that case, considering Foltest and Adda are visiting the mage training place as small children in ep 3, while Foltest is a 50+ old man when inerracting with Geralt in the same episode. And I'm assuming they eventually meet later in the show.
They're (short for They are) describes a group of people. "They're/They are a nice bunch of guys." Their indicates that something belongs/is related to a group of people. "Their car was all out of fuel." There refers to a location. "Let's set up camp over there." There is also no such thing as "could/should OF". The correct way is: Could/should'VE, or could/should HAVE.
Holyfury armory
I wanna start off with saying that I don't have a problem with the casting of this series but let me explain where these people come from. There are plenty of good reasons to bring more diversity into TV and cinema but you're just spreading misinformation here and that doesn't help anyone.
You're intentionally conflating early modern times with the early high middle ages. This is stupid for several reasons. Firstly, it's a time span of 700 years in which European societies were transformed drastically. Secondly, the people of colour in Europe you mentioned were the product of modern colonialism (which Poland didn't really participate in) which means that they have no relevance when talking about medieval times. Of course, there were other historic events like the Expulsion of the Moriscos from Spane that could have influenced the overall ethnic make-up of European countries but that's also early modern history.
Lastly, you have to take into consideration that Poland is to this day roughly 98% ethnically Polish. In many European countries you won't see a single black person if you visit the country side to this day despite the changes that occured in regards to mobility and migration. You're projecting social and cultural constructs that developed in the United States and parts of modern Europe onto medieval European history.
Last edited by Nerovar; 2019-12-23 at 04:46 PM.
No beard? Yuck.
---
The United States is an immigrant country, meaning a large part of the culture is based on immigration and diversity, however, a lot of other peoples and places have populations that feel very connected to their locale and heritage as part of their culture. It is possible to have places that are not ethnically diverse for this reason with others like (it was hard to move vast distances in the past) to not be racist. To all the genuinely racist people out there, evolution will adapt your genetic line to your location over the generations, so if you really want more pale people, fight global warming and stay in the shade.
Last edited by Thirza; 2019-12-23 at 04:45 PM.
considering the witcher world is a single continent it doesn't surprise me that the ppl who are in that worlds version of Africa would have an easier time emigrating north. in fact with a world like that you'd expect huge diversity as there are no oceans separating peoples.
talking of the world i only just noticed how much it reminds me of faerun. uncanny almost. at least the sword coast maybe.
Last edited by Heathy; 2019-12-23 at 04:49 PM.
It seems to be pretty popular. If they listen to the criticisms, I'm sure we'll be looking at at least a couple more seasons. Some of the issues (like pacing and the confusing leaps in time) should fix themselves once they move over to the novels as their source material.
Also who knows? Maybe he'll change his mind on the beard thing later on.
That's also a fair point.
Last edited by Nerovar; 2019-12-23 at 05:04 PM.
Wow they really nailed fringilla, she totally had pale skin like in the books which this series is based on xD but at least we got our token black chick in there aye netflix. The dryads, typical black amazonian women wielding spears who are supposed to be green skin and gods with a bow. This aint wakanda motherfucker. And that whole brokilon story was just skipped.. important stuff happens there with ciri/geralt its where they first meet.
It was pretty ok though aside from the timey wimey bullshit. The whole sorceress story line came outta fuckin nowhere... but Geralt and Dandelion are 10/10 and reason enough to watch. There is tons more I could nit pick but I 100% knew they wouldn't be faithful to the books despite that show runner chick going oooon and oooon how she plans to remain faithful. Yeah right lady.
"Oh, a white redhead" feels like the only justification for that suggestion. I'm sure they looked at a ton of people, I watched an interview where they said they looked at 207 different actors for Geralt before they settled on Henry. There are all kinds of things that go into casting, just because an actor might "look" the part, they might not be available, they might be too expensive, they might just not fit the actual content of the role (I like Karen Gillian, but I think of Triss as a "soft" character, while Karen Gillian has had a bit of a "hard" Scottish edge in everything I've seen her in), etc.
Who really cares though. Fringilla's skin color is as irrelevant to the story as if Idris Elba was cast as Bond.
- - - Updated - - -
Also Triss having red hair isn't faithful to the books, it's just her more well-known character trait from the games.
Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
It's really disheartening to see this endless debate about and focus on casting choices and diversity.
To those who dislike the casting and the ethnical diversity of the cast: In the current political climate of the US (and a few other countries), it's not an option to feature a diverse cast. It would be considered a political statement to *not* have a diverse cast, possibly ruining the career of the showrunner and/or causing a shitstorm againt Netflix.
To those who think anyone disliking the casting choices are Nazis or racists: It's perfectly possible to want a more strict adherence to the source material when casting - and yet not be a racist. Even if this casting comes at the detriment of diversity and even if you personally disagree about the history or source material. It's naive to expect every single person to prioritize diversity over all other preferences. It's also to be expected that taking a stance on a certain minimum-level of diversity when casting (which as explained above is de facto not optional) can and will upset some fans.
As I've mentioned earlier, the casting really is a minor detail for me - I don't care much about it compared to other things, and I'm certainly not upset because I have some racist notion of not wanting people of color in my entertainment.
But I was also annoyed when Game of Thrones had too racially diverse Dothraki, who despite being a migrant horde and thus inherently more ethnically diverse than a sedentary medieval nation, really should have been pre-dominantly copper-skinned. There were a lot of pale Dothraki in the show. I also thought the Summer Islanders should have been darker skinned - most of the actors were obviously of mixed descent in real-life. These weren't major issues for me - just slight annoyances. I am just explaining how this is not about "black" or "white" - but about the necessities of having a diverse cast causing some clashes with the imaginary world (as I see them).
As this thread makes obvious, diversity in casting choices is divisive. It makes people see the proponents of other side of the argument as far more extreme than they probably are in real life. So while I understand why it is not an option to have a minimum level of diversity, this is not helped by there being a group (luckily a small one) who don't want diversity for such reasons as actor meritocracy or giving all viewers "a mirror", but want to use race and gender swaps to provoke and/or enlighten viewers. I perfectly fine with choice of political activism people want - when it's a fresh franchise - but when an existing franchise is being used as a battleground for politics, it is usually a selfish, destructive and counter-productive act.
That was a lot of words to essentially just say "chill out" to both sides of this argument. Diversity in casting is not going away any time soon, but neither are people being annoyed and complaining about it.