The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[Heathy]

there are some significant differences between the show and what happens in the witcher 3 and yeah i've not read the books i wouldn't read them if i was paid to do so, the author comes across to me as an arrogant dick, so i'd rather read fan fiction than his own books. but i just don't read books, its not something i do, i do most of my reading on here, reddit other forums, thats enough reading for me. I'd say if i were going to read a high fantasy story i'd start with LoTR first, but i just couldn't get into those books they are far too long winded for me. i've heard the witcher books aren't much different in that sense. but i've also heard that the books end before the beginning of the first game, so the games essentially pick up where the books end.

[kamuimac]

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.

nah . they just fucked up and didnt put timestamps.

my guess is because if they did people would be pissed why they are jumping so much in time between scenes - instead for example make 1-2 while episodes as Yen story , make 1 episode as Ciri story, 1 episode as temeria story etc etc

dont make ideology to their clear fuck ups.

- - - Updated - - -

there are some significant differences between the show and what happens in the witcher 3 and yeah i've not read the books i wouldn't read them if i was paid to do so, the author comes across to me as an arrogant dick, so i'd rather read fan fiction than his own books. but i just don't read books, its not something i do, i do most of my reading on here, reddit other forums, thats enough reading for me. I'd say if i were going to read a high fantasy story i'd start with LoTR first, but i just couldn't get into those books they are far too long winded for me. i've heard the witcher books aren't much different in that sense.

theauthor is indeed a dick - and truth be told he is seen as a dick but whole polish fantasy fandom

still it doesnt change the fact that his books are very high quality . And you are definetly missing by not reading them just because you dont like persona of author.

[Heathy]

indeed its super petty of me to put it that way, really I'm just not much of a reader, I find visual story telling better, it completely removes the reliance on ones own imagination, but a few moments of video can do what a book takes a whole chapter to achieve. I don't have anything against books, I just find them to be something I wish I had more patience to read through. I tried reading the hobbit once, but i couldn't get over how slow it was.

maybe if i can find a good translation ill give it a go and see if i fair any better. the last book i read cover to cover was called the big over easy, which was about nursery rhyme characters and a detective trying to find out who murdered humpty dumpty. it was an interesting book but i've not read another book since then.

I dunno if they completely butchered the story so far, events changed specifics changed but it all ended up playing out roughly the same way, I'm not sure where they are going to take the show which is probably what makes it interesting. I think certain things have to change for them to make sense on screen, you have to change things when you move a story from one medium to the next. and fitting a story like this into 1hr bites, it forces it into the tv show formula. where each episode is a self contained story within a larger over arching story happening over the entire season.

there is a certain amount of chronology i'm still confused about. there are events that take place that are hard to determine when they happened in relation to everything else that happens. hopefully the tv show will eventually put a pin in that problem and everyone will be on the same page. I have heard that the books end, before the start of the first game, which must take place some time during the witcher 3 but it doesn't because its a whole game that ppl don't talk much about. at some point the source material is gunna run out and either the show will end or it'll move into video game canon.

[kamuimac]

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.

the changes are really huge. The whole Dryad arc is written completly differently in books - hell many things are rewritten to simplyfy them and are loosing depth in process. For example - most of those dryads are not even dryads anymore - they are human children taken away and made forcefully to drink waters of brookylon in order to brainwash them by making them instantly forget past and use in guerilla war against humans who want to use natural resources of forest . Ciri was one of those kids by accident when she met Geralt first time before fall of cinitra - thing is waters didnt work (thats the only thing that show got right) .

i do agree that people who didnt read books wont know it - and are missing a lot.

[Dch48]

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.

Totally agree. The time jumps around way too much. It should be presented in a more linear and coherent fashion. ( I also disagree that the actress playing Yennefer is "hot as hell". I think she's barely average looking. Her skin tone doesn't bother me at all. It's mostly her mouth that looks like she has a repaired hare lip. Scars and all.)

[Cynep]

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

It takes one minute to see that your 2-minute search further proves my point

The deceptively named book you linked discusses Moors. Of course there were Moors in Europe! They even counquered almost entire Iberian peninsula for a few centuries. Othello was a Moor. Word "Moor" is European name for Berbers and Arabs. As I said in the post you quoted, Arabs and Berbers are "Caucasians", not "Negroids". For example, actress playing Fringilla is not a Moor, she's a Bantu.

Anyways, only fools still complain that there are African-Americans on the Continent in a show made in America. Much more warranted complaint would be that there are no Moors and no East Asians on the Continent. It's not diversity if you include African-Americans but exclude Arabs, Native Americans and East Asians.

- - - Updated - - -

There definitely were black people in Medieval Europe (and before then, basically from antiquity on). There are more than enough portraits of black people at the time. There weren't a LOT, but they were around.

See above.

- - - Updated - - -

nah . they just fucked up and didnt put timestamps.

This. Time jumps are fine, but they should've given the viewers some hint each time when they change timelines.

[Acidbaron]

there are some significant differences between the show and what happens in the witcher 3 and yeah i've not read the books i wouldn't read them if i was paid to do so, the author comes across to me as an arrogant dick, so i'd rather read fan fiction than his own books. but i just don't read books, its not something i do, i do most of my reading on here, reddit other forums, thats enough reading for me. I'd say if i were going to read a high fantasy story i'd start with LoTR first, but i just couldn't get into those books they are far too long winded for me. i've heard the witcher books aren't much different in that sense. but i've also heard that the books end before the beginning of the first game, so the games essentially pick up where the books end.

Hmmmm, you are aware that the TV show takes place long before the Witcher 3?

[Heathy]

you mean after the time lapse? the beginning of the witcher 3 can't be that long before the tv show as ciri is still a child training at kaer morhen. the game time lapses after the tutorial 10 or maybe 15 years. thats true. the events of the first witcher game should theoretically happen during the witcher 3 but they don't? maybe during that 10 year time lapse or after it, the whole chronology is strange to me. its compounded by having two versions of the same story.

I have heard that the books end before the start of the first game, so everything in the first second and 3rd game is a sequel to the books, that don't go that far.

everything upto geralt and yenn falling in rivia, ciri teleporting them to the malus isle. yenn being taken by the wild hunt, geralt trading places with yenn, ciri rescuing geralt from the wild hunt, all of this must take place at some point during the time lapse in the w3. the only thing that makes the timeline make any sense. both the first and second games must take place during that time lapse.

[Arrowstormen]

The timelines are very simple, and they never go backwards in time in any of the three stories. Clearly some people were confused, but for me it was a total value element.

[Witchblade77]

It takes one minute to see that your 2-minute search further proves my point

The deceptively named book you linked discusses Moors. Of course there were Moors in Europe! They even counquered almost entire Iberian peninsula for a few centuries. Othello was a Moor. Word "Moor" is European name for Berbers and Arabs. As I said in the post you quoted, Arabs and Berbers are "Caucasians", not "Negroids". For example, actress playing Fringilla is not a Moor, she's a Bantu.

Anyways, only fools still complain that there are African-Americans on the Continent in a show made in America. Much more warranted complaint would be that there are no Moors and no East Asians on the Continent. It's not diversity if you include African-Americans but exclude Arabs, Native Americans and East Asians.

- - - Updated - - -


See above.

- - - Updated - - -


This. Time jumps are fine, but they should've given the viewers some hint each time when they change timelines.

umm. UMM. Othello was a "moor" he was also very VERY black, if you see the paintings, he was very VERY black. every painting from the past that we see of a moor - has a black person in it, not a pale skin berber or arab. so i don't know where you got this particular idea from.

[Cattleya]

The timelines are very simple, and they never go backwards in time in any of the three stories. Clearly some people were confused, but for me it was a total value element.

Exactly this. The three perspectives start at different times, yes, but they all flow in only one direction.

[Kallisto]

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.

For me no, for others I can see why it is was what I was saying.

[kail]

Chestnut hair is used to describe Brownish red color, in the books she is also descriptive as ginger, red hair, fiery red, and Yen call her ginger slut...

And her eyes is also blue in the books, it was a bad adaptation of Triss even if you bring up the books.

Even looks aside, her character just felt very flat for Triss.

[Polyxo]

It takes one minute to see that your 2-minute search further proves my point

The deceptively named book you linked discusses Moors. Of course there were Moors in Europe! They even counquered almost entire Iberian peninsula for a few centuries. Othello was a Moor. Word "Moor" is European name for Berbers and Arabs. As I said in the post you quoted, Arabs and Berbers are "Caucasians", not "Negroids". For example, actress playing Fringilla is not a Moor, she's a Bantu.

Anyways, only fools still complain that there are African-Americans on the Continent in a show made in America. Much more warranted complaint would be that there are no Moors and no East Asians on the Continent. It's not diversity if you include African-Americans but exclude Arabs, Native Americans and East Asians.

- - - Updated - - -


See above.

- - - Updated - - -


This. Time jumps are fine, but they should've given the viewers some hint each time when they change timelines.

Well, the ones portrayed definitely were not Arabic. Some were possibly Berbers (Numidians), but then Berber is not a singular, continguous ethnic group in terms of 'common descent'.Some pictured were likely Aksumites. Still others were Malian or likely Guinean or from similar areas. People in African travelled, and they travelled to Roman and Medieval Europe. And fine, lets include East Asians and other people. I'd love to be in Witcher.

[melodramocracy]

Just finished this up. I really enjoyed it for the most part. Episode 6 almost flies off the rails with cringe factor in a few spots, and episode 7 wastes far too much time with a recap that really isnt needed.

Its also worth noting for anyone who hasnt started it yet (and may not be familiar w the books or games) that you’re being shown different timelines, and that doesnt make itself obvious until several episodes in.

Overall I liked it and look forward to S2. Especially if the writing tightens a bit.

- - - Updated - - -

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?".

If you look at it like the young girls timeline is current, Geralts / Yennefer’s timelines start about 10-15 years and just show highlight stories, all 3 eventually converge, it makes it easier to follow.

[Sesto]

We just don't see him being a Witcher. All he does is talk and spare the few creatures we actually see him in contact with.

which is geralt being geralt

just because you played geralt as a witcher who kills all creatures he comes across that does not mean that's his character. maybe stop being a brainlet who only cares about fight scenes

[Greevir]

Even looks aside, her character just felt very flat for Triss.

This is my feelings on Triss. I don't care that her hair isn't "fiery" red or she isn't as pale as me (due to lack of sunlight, IT BURNS!). I simply found the actress to be boring and simply did not grab my attention. Now, for another character that was "race changed", I loved Mimi Ndiweni as Fringilla. She plays a pretty good evil bitch. Loved seeing her on screen. Yennifer is okay, I think. I would have liked to see her a bit more... deformed looking in the beginning though. I like Henry as Geralt but hope he can kinda hide that slight grin he does at times. The CGI was pretty bad (hopefully season 2 gets more budget). Nilf armor is still shit. Camerawork is kinda boring. Like, simple tripod cameras with the actor/actress in the dead middle of the screen during dialog far too much. Move the camera around a bit, geez (not talking shaky cam shit). A decent first season, looking forward to season 2.

Also, was Episode 3 (of the Geralt storyline) basically the cinematic for the first Witcher game?

[OriginalName]

Never played a witcher game or read any witcher books, so I got into this blind, all I knew was that the witcher is a guy called geralt and he has two swords, uses potions.

The whole timeline was really messy, but since I binged it by the end it all made sense to me, what I didn't like was how the show made it seem like it wanted me to care for characters, as if I had a prior relation (book/game) to them, I couldn't and it was evident that there were loads of things that would have made much more sense had I known about the medium beforehand.

Like, the whole religion with the wormy-armor guys, what chaos is, why/what elves but also big things like why does this geralt guy suddenly love this yennifer woman, when they only shared 2 scenes beforehand.

So, even if I felt quite disconnected from the story until the last episode, I liked it and I hope season 2 is more in relation to season 1, so I can actually follow the depth of the show rather than needing to play the games to understand what's actually going on.

[xenogear3]

I hate these TV shows jumping around the timeline.
At least put timestamp on it.

As for the book, I am sure it is nothing special.
It just got famous because of the video game.

Just like human being, there are plenty of good books, but don't have a movie/game to "marketing" it.

[Irefusetodie]

Felt like they shouldn't have had Ciri as a third major character of the season. Her story was pretty flat and she really didn't do much. They should've taken more time with Yen and Geralt's story and condensed Ciri's into the end of the season. That would've made the timeline easier to follow and had far less jumping around between characters and their current stories. Magic wasn't very expounded upon either. Yen goes from being unable to keep a big bug at bay to unleashing a massive flame aoe. I haven't read the books but have played the games, and I've heard from others that destiny plays a big part in the books. Don't know if it's as ham-fisted in the books as this series was with it, but hope they tone that down in the next season.

I have high hopes for season 2 given criticism/feedback and the character backstories being finished. Shouldn't have timeline jumping like season 1 and hopefully they'll work on their cinematography, CGI, and expound a bit better on magic. Also much, much, much more monster hunting. Episode 3 was by far the best.