The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[oplawlz]

You misunderstand my point, I'm not simply asking if it keeps it's fantasy elements, I'm asking if it's losing what is fundamentally core to the series by diversifying the cast, there's a diference, and I don't believe it loses anything.

I really don't understand why people are so worked up about Triss - her looks really have no impact on the story at all. Should they have chosen a more attractive actress to play a sorceress, who underwent a magical beauty treatment? Yeah, but that can be said for half the other witches too (including the white ones).

As I mentioned earlier Yennefer is the only jarring element visually, but she plays the role fairly well so it can be overlooked.

[Easyclassictopkeklel]

Triss is only a side-character without much meaning in the books anyways.
I don't get what all the fuss is about...from both sides. Its not like the books were literature masterpieces...more like pretty standard and mediocre fantasy with a lot of lore and story "borrowed" from other stories, farie tales, etc.

[Donimic]

As someone who has neither read the books nor played the game, I think they are doing a very poor job in setting up background and character development. The marketing for this series felt like they were attempting to bring the series to a mainstream platform but it feels more like fan-service instead. I constantly feel like something happens and I'm missing a piece or the point in a characters actions. The first few episodes are peace-meal and jump around a lot.

[Skorpionss]

Every single main character in Game of Thrones was white. Even the Dornish, who were supposed to be Spanish influenced, largely played by white people. And they butchered that storyline anyways.

The only brown people in the series were former slaves who served Danerys.

There's no "fear of persecution" that "forces a diversity quota," in Hollywood. The most successful shows in Hollywood in the past decade (Breaking Bad comes to mind) have largely been white casts.

It's just a fucking fantasy, a conspiracy made up.

You do realize that Spain is majorly white, right? maybe a bit tanned but white nonetheless.

[Ahovv]

does it keep fantasy elements ? sure

does it loose soul of books and story ? yes

yes i understand that people who didnt read books - aka i bet majority of netflix adaptation viewers will be ok with it .

but for me who enjoyed those books already over 15 years ago is killing all fun from watching it.

and the sole reason for those actions is diversity quotas that every US productions have to meet else they would be crucified by mass-media.

Ok Boomer

[Ungeir]

It's a difficult situation, at every level.

On the one hand, people are absolutely correct in pointing out that the source materials has a specific context. On the other hand, diversity is a concern that goes beyond perfect adherence to source materials.

It's especially tricky for entirely fictional works, because in many cases, there's no accuracy to consider. If you're working with historic materials, something like race may be a very delicate thing to utilize (not a lot of Chinese in, say, 15th century Scotland for example; likely none whatsoever, in fact). But with fictional settings it's different. The argument "but the author's world has defined racial makeups" is only partially valid - on the one hand, it can be a legitimate artistic vision, but on the other, it's arbitrary. Nothing says that fictional word HAS to be populated by white people, or that black people HAVE to be marginalized there, or whatever else. EVEN IF THERE IS A DIEGETIC REASON, that reason was chosen by the author and could well have been chosen differently. It reminds me of someone asking the WoW people why there wasn't a female warchief in WoD, and they said "well that's just how Orc society works". NO IT'S NOT. "Orc society" is not REAL. It's an imagination YOU came up with, and YOU chose to make it in a way that didn't put women in the warchief spot. No extraneous circumstances forced you to, and no historic pressure would have broken immersion if you chose differently. In much the same way, you could explain the Witcher world by saying "well different races occupy different parts of that world and we're looking at one particular one where whites are the most common" - which makes sense, but is also NOT REAL. YOU chose the world to be that way, author. And you could have chosen differently (especially given the whole Conjunction of the Spheres background, it wouldn't have been too difficult) but didn't. THAT is what people critique, and may choose to dilute by introducing diversity.

Now, I'm not saying, of course, that this is unequivocally true or that it's always easy to remedy. Nor is it always in line with diegetic concerns. Many worlds may actively engage with issues of racism, sexism, and so on. A world may be "all white" for reason of its own critique, reflecting a real-world historic fact in a critical way. Racism may be a large part of a fictional word precisely to point out racism in the real world. You may not be able to simple change that - but what's more important, you may not WANT to. Taking away that element could take away from the story. And therein lies the rub, because how do you choose where it's important, and where it's not? There's no patent answer.

Real-world concerns of diversity are also more than just the leftist fantasy they're often portrayed as. Normalization is a huge part of change. It may look forced now, but that's because we're at a moment of transition. We think having people of color on the screen in greater proportion is out of the ordinary - but that is PRECISELY the problem. Not the fact per se that there weren't many PoCs before, BUT THE FACT WE THINK IT'S OUT OF THE ORDINARY. Why should it be? Why shouldn't there be people of color, and of varying sexual orientations, and gender identities, and whatever else? Why do we think they are "not normal"? THAT is the point of attack people are trying to go for (or at least should be, if they're smart) - normalizing a greater degree of social diversity to the point where new generations take it as a matter of fact that there's all sorts of people in all sorts of places, and that if they see a black lesbian doctor on TV, they see just "a doctor", and everything else is secondary. To us at this moment, it's difficult to overlook the secondaries - and yes, producers to their part to make it harder, by being heavy-handed with their diversity to the point where a character like that would go "Hi I'm Dr. Carrie I'M BLACK BTW AND I DON'T LIKE COCK" which is - quite definitely - stupid writing and counterproductive to the cause. But that doesn't make the cause itself the problem, only its implementation.

It's a difficult time we live in, and one of band-aid solutions. Affirmative action and quotas work the same way. Should we have equality of opportunity over equality of outcome? Absolutely. But that's a long-term goal, and in the short term, some people need a leg up to get us all into a state of mind where we can rely on things to work without the help. Will it suck in the short term, and be unfair in some ways? Yes. But it's also been unfair in other ways for a LONG time, and if we ever want to arrive at a new normal, we'll have to work for it. The same goes for diversity. It will look jarring and forced for a while, but eventually it will - hopefully - settle into a new normalcy that allows people to live differently as a matter of course rather than a matter of directive. We're getting there in some areas. The role of women in media, for example, has changed a lot compared to say the 1950s. Are we in a perfect state? Hell no. But for every Ghostbusters III there also exists an Ellen Ripley. That gives us hope.

That's the sane and nuanced approach to diversity. I have absolutely no problem with the kind of rationales you outline - except when it moves too fast and too aggressively, and thus ends up with tokenism or creating fanbase division.

Nerd culture is generally incredibly open to challenging the status quo when it comes to ethnical, cultural, religious and sexual representation. However, they are also incredibly harsh on existing franchises being "hijacked" by an agenda. All too often the resulting hostility is mistaken for prejudice, misogyny, racism, etc.

There are tons of examples of new characters, new franchises, new stories being accepted with no outrage or division. But mess with the established franchises and there's trouble. I find it incredibly depressing how Star Wars went from something that united across generations and social groups to a subject of division and toxicity. And that's almost exclusively from the directors and high-ups being provocative about their decisions. Normalizing diversity also means that one should refrain from "the force is female". Alita is a fan-favorite as it was faithful to the source material and didn't try to antagonize anyone. Truth is that diversity is already the norm in "nerd culture", despite what some claim. I can't help but feel that there are some executives and creatives who go out of their way to create division, rather than try to create positive change.

Witcher has a ton of storylines and aspects that are progressive in nature and outlook. I don't think it needed diversity casting decisions. I am not too fussed about them, but I think we can see the harm it's done to the fanbase who are now arguing and fighting. That's wasted potential. And when the casting calls specifically mentioned PoC that's just dumb and unfair to the actor who has to build a relationship with fans. It's very difficult for an actor to build a fan connection if the fanbase is already split in two.

There's also the aspect that some stories and worlds are important to a nation, culture or sub-culture. Witcher has special importance to many Central and Eastern Europeans, as the fantasy genre is dominated by a mostly English and American tradition. It's no surprise that such fans resent seeing casting decisions made primarily with American social and cultural issues in mind. Sometimes diversity should take a backseat to respect the material. Not because diversity is offensive. Not because diversity shouldn't be normalized. But because some stories have a context that shouldn't be ignored.

There's also a very distinctive Anglo-American diversity angle to the casting - we've seen numerous shows with mostly Anglo-American, Scandinavian and German nationals - with skin colors including europeans, africans and a variety of ambigous backgrounds. There is a distinct lack of Hispanics, (Non-South) Asians, Native Americans, Slavs and Turks. Apologies if I've used an insensitive moniker for one or more of these. My point is that to whom are we trying to be diverse - should the representation match the world, America, the viewers, OECD, or ? I know your point is that the end goal is that it shouldn't really try to match anything, and we should be color-blind. But we're not there yet and thus it does make a difference if a show is distinctly american in casting diversity.

I am all for opening up opportunities for all actors - but I don't think established franchises are the place for this. As an aside I think stereotyping is a much bigger issue than representation at this time, but that's an entirely different discussion (e.g. in Denmark actors of middle-eastern backgrounds are cast as either gangsters or rags-to-riches doctors/businessmen).

But it's a difficult situation for the Witcher showrunners - they had to have some amount of diversity in casting. It was not an option to go with a mostly full cast of slavic/germanic looking actors. But they pushed slightly too far with the Yen and Triss casting. Anya is a great actress, so it's not about her lack of merits, but I think they've put her in a very difficult situation. At least they didn't do a PoC Ciri casting - because that would torn apart the fanbase from day 1 with no possible recovery. I am also disappointed at the lack of Slavic actors among the cast.

[J012D4N]

"Oh, a white redhead" feels like the only justification for that suggestion.

Yes, basically that's it. Honestly, they could've just dyed Anna's damn hair, LOL.
Think everyone would have to admit that even if they interviewed 10,000 actors for Geralt, he was never going to have short jet-black hair. Never. For Triss, they more than likely interviewed a good chunk of ladies for the role and Anna ended up being the best fit on availability & skill-set needed.

She'll make the part her own, and I'm sure later on in the series, those newer to the franchise will look back @ prior portrayals of her (Games, books, etc.) saying "WTF, why is Triss' hair red?".

[stevenho]

That's all the books are though, source material. Source material doesn't mean anything beyond being a point of departure for creating the show.

They don't have to adhere to anything just because you're reeeally attached to the books. The show is an entirely seperate entity, and should be considered as such. Anything else is pointless complaining for the sake of it.

While it is OK to change source material and adapt the story however the shorwunners see fit, it is just as OK to have opinions on whether it adds to or detracts from the show.

[Arrowstormen]

While it is OK to change source material and adapt the story however the shorwunners see fit, it is just as OK to have opinions on whether it adds to or detracts from the show.

Totally true, however, in the case of this issue of diversity, I at least have no empathy with that opinion, and I have nothing but contempt for the opinion that the show has lost the "soul" of the books because of it.

[Ihavewaffles]

I have seen ep 1-4 n I must say they try to cram in 3 seasons worth of material into 1...Good actors, but events n characters are thrown at us too often...so have to watch with text turned on.

Sometimes cinematography is good, other times it's like watching shannara show...

This isnt like GoT or the Mandalorian where I can't wait until the next episode..

[DaHomieG]

I've never understood why people would want anything other than the original voices tbh. It both looks and sounds weird.

I just figured that if they're making a Witcher show then they would have it in the language of the creators' as well as English.

[cronumic]

I have seen ep 1-4 n I must say they try to cram in 3 seasons worth of material into 1...Good actors, but events n characters are thrown at us too often...so have to watch with text turned on.

Sometimes cinematography is good, other times it's like watching shannara show...

This isnt like GoT or the Mandalorian where I can't wait until the next episode..

I think they need to add time or some sort of subtext during scenes/episodes. Season 1 isn't a coherent story but short stories that are not organized in a chronological order. With different character PoV in earlier episodes playing over different time periods. 99% of shows are chronological and have a flowing story but in at least Season 1 the time is relative to other episodes in a way that can only be determined through the details.

[eschatological]

I mean, the books started out as a series of short stories too. I haven't started this series yet, but maybe the fragmented feeling stems from that?

[Azadina]

I think they need to add time or some sort of subtext during scenes/episodes. Season 1 isn't a coherent story but short stories that are not organized in a chronological order. With different character PoV in earlier episodes playing over different time periods. 99% of shows are chronological and have a flowing story but in at least Season 1 the time is relative to other episodes in a way that can only be determined through the details.

I've not read the books or played the games before, so personally I'm kind of confused about what the actual story is about, especially when it seems to jump around different perspectives and time. About to start episode 5, and I still have the same question in mind as I did during episode one "what am I watching?".

[Heathy]

I've not read the books or played the games before, so personally I'm kind of confused about what the actual story is about, especially when it seems to jump around different perspectives and time. About to start episode 5, and I still have the same question in mind as I did during episode one "what am I watching?".

I don't want to spoil anything but I think you could basically watch a youtube video that overviews the story of the witcher 3 and you'd likely spoil the show but you would know what its about. I think the series is about many things, mainly its about geralt, the world he lives in and the overall conflicts. I think geralt mostly tries to stay neutral but ultimately ends up picking the morally right choice. while most ppl think his witcherness makes him devoid of emotion, the viewer or the player knows this isn't true. he definitely does have emotion. so while most ppl shun his mutation, ppl rely on him for his monster slaying, its an interesting contradiction. he does manage to be a major influencer of events. not to mention most of the characters that get along with him, are also likeable characters have their own depth and stories.

there are significant parts to this story that just haven't happened in the show yet.

this video might help it make sense, but it will spoil things. depending on where the show ultimately goes.

[Kallisto]

I’m loving the series. Henry Cavill is great and the chick that plays Yennefer is hot as hell. Who gives a shit if someone isn’t the “right” skin tone. 99% of the people watching this don’t know or care it’s based on a book or game. “Forced” diversity. More like “I’m not a racist but” thinking.

Most of the complaints I've seen about "forced diversity." if they're posting in general/politics forum do show the "I'm not racist but." at best kind of posts over there.

For others it seems to be "I don't care about the books, they should cater to the games images because that's what I know." type.

Some issues I can understand. Took me a few episodes to realise Ciri stuff was years maybe even decades after first couple episodes of geralt/yennifer scenes. For me it wasn't until the episode where Geralt was at the castle dining with the queen that it clicked.

Even with that though I found the show enjoyable. I'm sure season two will be better due to it being more coherent most likely.

[Acidbaron]

I mean, the books started out as a series of short stories too. I haven't started this series yet, but maybe the fragmented feeling stems from that?

Ah that would indeed explain a lot, hopefully the series despite the initial confusion caused in the first episodes gets watched enough so that more can be build on.

There is plenty of stories to go on the games didn't cover or only the first game did considering how much overlooked that game is.

[Arrowstormen]

Some issues I can understand. Took me a few episodes to realise Ciri stuff was years maybe even decades after first couple episodes of geralt/yennifer scenes. For me it wasn't until the episode where Geralt was at the castle dining with the queen that it clicked.

Is that an issue? That is on purpose, they were hoping as it becomes increasingly clear that people would have an "a-ha" moment and rethink what they had seen earlier, rather than feel like they were supposed to have known all along and it should have been made more clear.

[kamuimac]

I still think the show has done a better job at showing the connection between ciri and geralt, the game practically glosses over this in the opening sequence. i remember you piece some parts of ciri's past together through the game with flash backs and some bits of dialogue here and there but the entire premise with ciri parents and the law of suprise is not something i remember the game mentioning or showing. it simply doesn't go that way in the game, geralt goes to the king, and he ask geralt to look after ciri, thats about it, the show was much better at telling this part of the story than the game was imo. the game pretty much time lapses at the end of where the season ends and starts 15 years in the future. almost as if the show is a pre-quel to where the game starts.

if season 2 starts and ciri is 20+ years old then it would be closer to what happens in the game.

and you think that because you didnt read books

they completly twisted and butchered that story

for example geralt met ciri earlier for the first time - before skellige - he just didnt know it was her - the whole scene in brookilon took place much much earlier way before fall of Cinitra and was completly different.

the whole part about doppleganger ? never happened in books . Because Ciri never went to brookilon after escaping Cinitra.And Geralt wasnt kept in dungeoon because he was never there when Cinitra was falling.

[Arrowstormen]

and you think that because you didnt read books

they completly twisted and butchered that story

for example geralt met ciri earlier for the first time - before skellige - he just didnt know it was her - the whole scene in brookilon took place much much earlier way before fall of Cinitra and was completly different.

also season 2 wont start when she is 20 because 5 books take place before what happens in game when Ciri is a growing teenager .

I would propose that these are superficial changes, and that the show is very much true to what The Witcher is about and is saying.