The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[Biomega]

Fuck blackwashing. I've got enough. When's Abraham Lincoln movie that casts a black guy as Linc? Who cares about the history, feelings and diversity are more important than being true to the sources. Also don't forget to call me nazi, because apparently all people that see something wrong with changing white people into black people in book<->movie/series adaptation are nazis.
All these SJW forcing diversity on everything would probably fucking explode when Malcolm X was played by a white guy. Whitewashing is nazism and racism, blackwashing is diversity!

First of all, retreating into a "oh that must mean I'm a nazi, then!" defense is not only childish, but borderline worrisome. Secondly, nobody is talking about examples where race is an integral part of the character and story, like your Lincoln or Malcolm X examples. It baffles me that the first thing people come up with when you call them out on their opposition to race changes of characters where race is irrelevant to their identity or story is to bring up characters where it's integral.

Also, what do you think people of color feel like when they see everything everywhere being all white people? It's easy to go "aw shucks that's just how it is we can't change it" if YOU'RE in the privileged position. And let's be clear: we're talking about an entirely fictional work here, not a historic one. Nothing in The Witcher says what characters look like except author's choice, which while not random is certainly arbitrary in the sense that they could choose to make it whatever they want. We can't choose to make historical facts something they're not (though some people would certainly like that...), but we can absolutely be very flexible with entirely fictional materials.

In fact, I'm sure you could put together an entire catalog of details where the Witcher show differs from the book. But nobody is talking about how a castle is described differently, or how the season doesn't match, or how someone's taller than they are in the books, or has a different eye color. Yet the race of a supporting characters is all of a sudden a big deal and integral to character identity, even though it's nothing but a casual and purely descriptive detail in the book? Why is race singled out over all the other details, if it's something that doesn't matter to the character or the story?

Playing devils advocate, I think it's less about the story more about the feel. Especially if in the books she is described as one thing and looks another in the series. It's familiarity.

But characters are changed ALL THE TIME in adaptation. Barely if any are completely true to the source material. Some details matter more. Geralt's eyes and hair, for example, are a distinctive part of his character because they identify him as who he is throughout the story, and to other characters in the story. Other details matter less. Fringilla's race is part of that. It doesn't change anything about the character except details that aren't relevant to the story. You might as well argue that Mousesack has the wrong eye color or whatever, it'd be as irrelevant.

Characters ethnicitiy can have a huge impact on the audience's prior internalized perspective on who the character is, before some casting manager ruins that vision for them, obviously the biggest reason you put book/game characters to screen is to mimic their portrayal in the prior medias, not change it.

Isn't that an argument FOR diversity, though, rather than against it? The whole point is to try and work against preconceived normalities. People think it's a big deal because they've grown up internalizing that race is a big deal. The goal is to change their sensibilities, over time, to allow for different perspectives - not to erase race or racial awareness, not at all, but to distinguish between where it's important and where it's not.

lets make a movie with white actor playing martin luther king and then make the same claim eh ?

its not a rasism to want that characters which have good description in books to be played by actors with similiar traits.

It is if it's not relevant to the story. That's why the MLK example is a false analogy - his story is all about race. Fringilla's is not. For MLK, race is at the core of what defined his entire plight; for Fringilla, race is as irrelevant a detail as her height or eye color or whatever. Liberty in adaptations is taken all the time when it comes to irrelevant details. What's important is getting the relevant ones right - and even there, it doesn't necessarily have to be 100% true to the source (and Fringilla definitely works differently between book, game, and show). That's how adaptation works. That's what makes it interesting. 100% truthfulness to the original is rarely a good idea, artistically speaking. Every artist understands that.

[Kallor]

Whining about color in The Witcher is pointless. If it was a black elf in Lord of the Rings, I could understand it, as Tolkien devoted a lot of time to geography, how the various elven races should look, etc.

I would of course prefer it if they found a great actor with red hair - and the actor for Triss didn't exactly impress me. BUT STILL, if the casting people genuinly thought she was the best choice, I have no qualms.

[Syegfryed]

People still can see how forced diversity have the exactly opposite effect of what people want to bring, people divided, rly sad

Everyone freaking out over Triss who is an irrelevant sideshow slut while Fringilla over here has literally been cast blacker than washington black when in the book/game/whatever she is whiter than sour cream. Now THAT is fucking diversity agenda, god I hate how white guilt has destroyed source material these days. Let's just make everyone black, fuck it. Diversity for everyone! (except white people)

people get freaking out by triss more because she is more important/know to then


both are bad indeed, but people are more familiarized, with another lv of affection, with Triss

Whining about color in The Witcher is pointless. If it was a black elf in Lord of the Rings, I could understand it, as Tolkien devoted a lot of time to geography, how the various elven races should look, etc.

but the witcher books, as far i know, do describe the races/characters, the elves are not pale?

to me black elves are not a big deal(i laughed my ass off when i saw the dude helping ciri looked like my cousin), cause ~~adaptation shenanigans~~ the race in general, was adapted to have both colors, but the named characters, like the king, should be faithful to the books

[OriginalName]

That is indeed a shallow argument you presented. Sticking as close to the source material as realistically possible is superficial and puts emphasis on being "like the source material" in all the wrong ways. In some cases, the ethnicity of a character matters, but that is not the case here. Arguing the race of the characters are a part of the author's "vision" paints the author in a bad light. Because of the Conjunction of the Spheres, it makes little sense that the nations on the Continent are not racially diverse. I think it is in this case much more likely to be a matter of omission rather than intent/vision.

I have no idea about the actual lore in this universe, I am arguing from a creators point of view, since you can just as easily flip this argument upside down; why does the ethnicity of a character matter? - well why would you change the ethnicity of a character?

Isn't that an argument FOR diversity, though, rather than against it? The whole point is to try and work against preconceived normalities. People think it's a big deal because they've grown up internalizing that race is a big deal. The goal is to change their sensibilities, over time, to allow for different perspectives - not to erase race or racial awareness, not at all, but to distinguish between where it's important and where it's not.

For starters, i'm not arguing against diversity.

Also you misunderstood the point I made, it's not about preconcieved normalities, it's about portraying recognizable characters in line with their prior media (had it been a game, then the character should look like how they do in the game, same with books) from what I can understand, these characters were explicitly stated as white, never as black, they had outstanding physical features laid out for them in the book(s).

Regardless, I can understand the undertaking the casting managers, directors w/e take on when they want to diversify a cast for the reasons "all of the above", but that DOES mean they are intentionally not trying to portray the real story.

[Ungeir]

Also, what do you think people of color feel like when they see everything everywhere being all white people? It's easy to go "aw shucks that's just how it is we can't change it" if YOU'RE in the privileged position. And let's be clear: we're talking about an entirely fictional work here, not a historic one. Nothing in The Witcher says what characters look like except author's choice, which while not random is certainly arbitrary in the sense that they could choose to make it whatever they want. We can't choose to make historical facts something they're not (though some people would certainly like that...), but we can absolutely be very flexible with entirely fictional materials.

This would be much stronger point if the source material wasn't Polish. American culture is so incredibly dominating that the myths, stories and literature of cultures from all continents are constantly adapted in an way that is consciously or unconsciously influenced by American culture, politics and tradition. The Witcher is a cherished cultural treasure for many Central and Eastern Europeans - and even other Europeans who delight in Fantasy not based in the Judeo-Christian / Anglo-Saxon legacy of Tolkien, C.S. Lewis et al.

I am not fussed about the diversity casting for the Witcher. In many cases it's brought good actors to the fore. But I think it's sad to see the lack of Slavic actors in a show drawing so heavily from their cultural roots. I think it creates unnecessary division among fans - and thus distracts from the liberal, progressive message at the core of The Witcher stories.

I get that the US has a past and a present that cannot be ignored in media, art and entertainment - but I do wish the powers-that-be in the entertainment industry could extend the same sensibility and respect to cultures outside of the US. And not just when it comes to taboos that close off certain markets, but in taking some effort in honoring the cultures the US so often borrows in the works being produced there. Especially in a setting such as the Witcher which actually has a massive potential for diverse casting without any controversy - add some Zerrikanian characters to the stories.

I know some will disagree but I think it is counterproductive to normalizing diversity to pretend that ethnical diversity has and is always the norm in all stories and history. Of course there needs to be acting opportunities for actors of all backgrounds - but I don't think that is exclusive to telling stories set in the past, in worlds of fiction or in locations that are not ethnically diverse. Accepting and being open about that is, in my opinion, perfectly fine. Bringing about a tolerant, pluralistic and color-blind society requires that we are honest and accepting about the past. Sometimes it makes good sense to interpret the past or works of fiction through the reality of a contemporary society, but I think The Witcher would have done better if focusing more on the Slavic and (non-Anglo-Saxon) European heritage, than on contemporary Anglo-American issues. If both had been considered, fine - but picking the latter and not the former was a mistake, I think.

Either way, I'm not upset about the casting - except Triss, but that's about lack of charisma and screen presence, and not about hair color or complexion. But I still maintain that it's awful that they couldn't find more room for more actors with Slavic descent. That really hits home just how much dominant Anglo-American culture is. Everyone is discussing the casting in the context of diversity - a primarily Anglo-American phenomenon, and next to no one is pointing out that the cast is primarily American, English, Scandinavian and German.

[Biomega]

This would be much stronger point if the source material wasn't Polish. American culture is so incredibly dominating that the myths, stories and literature of cultures from all continents are constantly adapted in an way that is consciously or unconsciously influenced by American culture, politics and tradition. The Witcher is a cherished cultural treasure for many Central and Eastern Europeans - and even other Europeans who delight in Fantasy not based in the Judeo-Christian / Anglo-Saxon legacy of Tolkien, C.S. Lewis et al.

I am not fussed about the diversity casting for the Witcher. In many cases it's brought good actors to the fore. But I think it's sad to see the lack of Slavic actors in a show drawing so heavily from their cultural roots. I think it creates unnecessary division among fans - and thus distracts from the liberal, progressive message at the core of The Witcher stories.

I definitely understand that sentiment (it helps that I have Slavic roots as well). And judging by the accents, they DID also try and diversify among white actors, though of course it's far less obvious than skin color and practically invisible for those in non-speaking roles.

That being said, changing racial awareness is a global issue and perhaps it's a bigger concern when it comes to a pervasive global medium like Netflix. I agree it's a problem that entertainment tends towards amalgamation based largely on a US model (or, I suppose, Japanese - those are really the two globally dominant cultural superpowers in entertainment today, with a not irrelevant 3rd place going to Bollywood). That's a really hard problem to tackle, because it works on so many levels, and from so many angles. The Witcher does its part in contributing to more cultural diversity through its mythology, and it's definitely refreshing to see something that isn't based in Anglo-American or at least Western/Central European paradigms of thought. But I don't think that excludes racial concerns ALSO being at play, and I don't think that the US is the only country or cultural sphere where race is a big issue. Poland has its share of diversity problems, for example; they are proportioned differently from the US, but at the core, it's large similar issues that are at stake. Same goes for many other countries. Yes blackness in particular means something different in the US than it does in France or the UK, and it's very important that these differences aren't erased; but the presence of a more diverse racial makeup in general is, I would say, something that has global importance as a general paradigm, irrespective of the exact proportions that are at play locally.

I know some will disagree but I think it is counterproductive to normalizing diversity to pretend that ethnical diversity has and is always the norm in all stories and history.

This is very tricky, I agree. History is a different matter altogether, and even there it's a big discussion about the role of artistic license - works of entertainment are, after all, not meant to be accurate representations of historical events. And we're fine casting really white Northern Europeans in the role of Roman emperors, when it's a slap in the face of Roman history to have the barbarians who ransacked the Roman Empire play at being its leaders; yet casting a black person would create an outrage. That's the key here: we are making distinctions based on biases no matter what we do. And we decide to draw lines across borders that are largely in our mind (see the whole thing with Jesus portrayed as whiter than sour cream, which seems ridiculous for someone born in the Levant two millennia ago). It's about that mental state much more so than anything else - i.e. it's not about pretending ethnic diversity has always been the norm, but illuminating the fact that we tend to assume a particular kind of ethnic makeup as a normalcy that isn't accurately reflective of facts either.

And ultimately it's not about the past as much as it is about the future. Diversity shouldn't be about erasing history or pretending it was all different, it should be about creating a mindset that allows us to move forward with greater acceptance of diversity that is a reality NOW, regardless of what was or wasn't the case in history. And art is part of that, because our cultural products reflect and direct our thinking. Socialization doesn't just happen in the household, it's much bigger than that. Part of that is understanding there's a role for artistic license in art, and that biases are constantly at work within cultural production. That's true independent of the medium, cultural context, or historical epoch.

[OriginalName]

I definitely understand that sentiment (it helps that I have Slavic roots as well). And judging by the accents, they DID also try and diversify among white actors, though of course it's far less obvious than skin color and practically invisible for those in non-speaking roles.

That being said, changing racial awareness is a global issue and perhaps it's a bigger concern when it comes to a pervasive global medium like Netflix. I agree it's a problem that entertainment tends towards amalgamation based largely on a US model (or, I suppose, Japanese - those are really the two globally dominant cultural superpowers in entertainment today, with a not irrelevant 3rd place going to Bollywood). That's a really hard problem to tackle, because it works on so many levels, and from so many angles. The Witcher does its part in contributing to more cultural diversity through its mythology, and it's definitely refreshing to see something that isn't based in Anglo-American or at least Western/Central European paradigms of thought. But I don't think that excludes racial concerns ALSO being at play, and I don't think that the US is the only country or cultural sphere where race is a big issue. Poland has its share of diversity problems, for example; they are proportioned differently from the US, but at the core, it's large similar issues that are at stake. Same goes for many other countries. Yes blackness in particular means something different in the US than it does in France or the UK, and it's very important that these differences aren't erased; but the presence of a more diverse racial makeup in general is, I would say, something that has global importance as a general paradigm, irrespective of the exact proportions that are at play locally.


This is very tricky, I agree. History is a different matter altogether, and even there it's a big discussion about the role of artistic license - works of entertainment are, after all, not meant to be accurate representations of historical events. And we're fine casting really white Northern Europeans in the role of Roman emperors, when it's a slap in the face of Roman history to have the barbarians who ransacked the Roman Empire play at being its leaders; yet casting a black person would create an outrage. That's the key here: we are making distinctions based on biases no matter what we do. And we decide to draw lines across borders that are largely in our mind (see the whole thing with Jesus portrayed as whiter than sour cream, which seems ridiculous for someone born in the Levant two millennia ago). It's about that mental state much more so than anything else - i.e. it's not about pretending ethnic diversity has always been the norm, but illuminating the fact that we tend to assume a particular kind of ethnic makeup as a normalcy that isn't accurately reflective of facts either.

And ultimately it's not about the past as much as it is about the future. Diversity shouldn't be about erasing history or pretending it was all different, it should be about creating a mindset that allows us to move forward with greater acceptance of diversity that is a reality NOW, regardless of what was or wasn't the case in history. And art is part of that, because our cultural products reflect and direct our thinking. Socialization doesn't just happen in the household, it's much bigger than that. Part of that is understanding there's a role for artistic license in art, and that biases are constantly at work within cultural production. That's true independent of the medium, cultural context, or historical epoch.

None of what you said made any sense and is just apologia for replacing, apropriating a culturally polish media and turning it into an americanized mess that clearly doesn't really pay much homage to its roots.

[Ivanstone]

Gee I would've thought the racists would've loved the casting in this show.
The three central characters who are the "good guys" are all white.
The two main black characters who were "blackwashed" are both antagonists. One is a flat out villain who uses immoral methods for immoral pursuits. The other is merely unethical and overlooks the suffering of others in pursuit of his desires.

Its almost like Birth of a Nation with swords and magic.

PS I'm actually enjoying the show but the structure and length of the production could use some work.

[Frozen Death Knight]

Watched the entire season a couple of days ago. I personally really liked it. Henry Cavill was great as Geralt. The season had some flaws, but overall I think it was a success.

One gripe I have with the show is some of the casting choices. Don't really understand Hollywood's reluctance of wanting cast redheads for characters that have previously been known to have red hair. The actor for Triss is doing an okayish job, but she really doesn't look remotely close to her games depiction or act quite like her, for instance. It's also strange how the show casted non-European ethnicities in a story primarily inspired by central European history, mythology, and folklore. It would be like casting a story set in Africa around the time of the Zulu Empire with people from a Mongolian heritage. Very odd. It's not often you get a story adaptation from a central European country like Poland, so being able to represent the culture of the region should be a top priority, as I see it. Hollywood has a bit of a habit of Americanizing things too much. I hope The Witcher show will not continue down that path too much down the line.

That said, the writing is still fairly decent, the acting is overall solid across the board, and there is a high production quality. The music is fairly good too. Jaskier's songs are a personal highlight for me (Toss a coin to your Witcheeeer...!). The timeline jumping can be slightly confusing at first, but you can puzzle things together fairly quickly if you pay attention. Looking forward to season 2.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Well, with the exception of episode 1 technically. Geralt's and Yennefer's storylines are building up to what happens to Ciri in episode 1, which is where all three narratives start to converge more and more. They are however told chronologically if you would cut each of the three storylines into three separate narratives, as you said.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

It's pretty straight forward, time only moves forward, each character just starts at a different point in time. It goes through each characters backstory, which are all part of different timelines.

It's the storyteller's fault for 1.) not making it clear that's what was going on and 2.) doing it that way without a narrative reason. See the Watchmen for how it's done properly; it is hinted from the very beginning that he's in a different timeline and his scenes are going by at a different rate than the rest of the series. And when there's a flashback, it's clear there's a flashback going on.

The Witcher failed miserably in doing any of that.

[Emerald Archer]

It's the storyteller's fault for 1.) not making it clear that's what was going on and 2.) doing it that way without a narrative reason. See the Watchmen for how it's done properly; it is hinted from the very beginning that he's in a different timeline and his scenes are going by at a different rate than the rest of the series. And when there's a flashback, it's clear there's a flashback going on.

The Witcher failed miserably in doing any of that.

Well these aren't flashbacks, they're different stories with no actual relevance to each other until the characters meet up. I'm not saying they couldn't have made it more obvious or clear, I'm just saying if people couldn't understand what was happening it's on them.

Because you realise pretty quickly it's 3 seperate stories that start at different points in time. And there's no past jumps, just different stories.

Just small brain boomers upset they couldn't comprehend what was happening. I understand complaints from people not liking how it was done, that's totally fair. Just not people saying that you couldn't understand what was happening.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Well these aren't flashbacks, they're different stories with no actual relevance to each other until the characters meet up. I'm not saying they couldn't have made it more obvious or clear, I'm just saying if people couldn't understand what was happening it's on them.

Because you realise pretty quickly it's 3 seperate stories that start at different points in time. And there's no past jumps, just different stories.

Just small brain boomers upset they couldn't comprehend what was happening. I understand complaints from people not liking how it was done, that's totally fair. Just not people saying that you couldn't understand what was happening.

No, it's 100% the storytellers' fault for it being confusing at all. Not because people aren't hyper intellectuals like you so desperately need to believe yourself to be.

[Arrowstormen]

It's the storyteller's fault for 1.) not making it clear that's what was going on and 2.) doing it that way without a narrative reason. See the Watchmen for how it's done properly; it is hinted from the very beginning that he's in a different timeline and his scenes are going by at a different rate than the rest of the series. And when there's a flashback, it's clear there's a flashback going on.

The Witcher failed miserably in doing any of that.

Not making it explicitly clear what was going on was a choice to let the viewer have an "a-ha" moment in episode 3 or 4 or whenever they figure it out. Knowing that the stories start at different points is, until episode 4, mostly unimportant for the content of the stories. It also had lots of narrative reason, such as introducing all three main characters (almost) right from the start, and letting us follow their stories concurrently so we understand them and their thematic similarities. It also highlights the sense of timelessness that Geralt and Yennefer has, having lived a long time without their situation changing much, which further ties into why Ciri is so important to them.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

I feel like at this point, society is too far gone that they'll get criticism no matter what they do. Cast all white people to stay faithful to the books - "ermagerd this show is racist", throw in some mixed ethnicity among the casting and you upset the people who want them to stay faithful to the books.

Personally I went into this show with low (or average) expectations mostly because I love the franchise and Witcher 3 in specific and I didn't want to get disappointed, but I really loved it honestly. Not every detail was perfect but I think they did a great job and the setup for an even better s2 is there.

I didn't see anyone complaining about the witcher 3 because every character was white.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

Not making it explicitly clear what was going on was a choice to let the viewer have an "a-ha" moment in episode 3 or 4 or whenever they figure it out.

You can try to rationalize it all you like after the fact. That doesn't change the actual facts: That it was just poorly done, period.

[Arrowstormen]

You can try to rationalize it all you like after the fact. That doesn't change the actual facts: That it was just poorly done, period.

If that's what you want to believe, sure.

[Emerald Archer]

No, it's 100% the storytellers' fault for it being confusing at all. Not because people aren't hyper intellectuals like you so desperately need to believe yourself to be.

I'm specifically saying the opposite, you don't have to be big brain to realise it. They have lines that specifically point out that it has been a few years or refer to events in that timeline to show there has been a jump. You're honestly slow if you can't tell when watching that there are just 3 different stories.

3 characters story lines, jumping EXCLUSIVELY forward in time to notable events in their lives. It's an intro season where you learn each characters backstory. and as in the books, these people have been alive a long time, we HAD to see massively different timelines.

Again, yes they could have made it clearer, no it wasn't so bad that the avg viewer couldn't understand what was happening after enough massive in show hints were dropped.

[Skizzit]

Wait, people were confused by the timeline stuff? I am only three episodes in and I thought it was pretty clear from the start. In the first episode there is a line of dialog from Ciri about her grandmother winning some battle when she was Ciri's age and then Renfri mentions that same battle to Geralt as if it just happened. It's pretty easy to see that Geralt's story is taking place long before Ciri's and then in episode 3 you even see the same character as an old man in Geralt's part and then as a child in Yenn's. It is also clear that both Geralt's and Yenn's are taking place over a much longer stretch of time at that point as well.

I'm specifically saying the opposite, you don't have to be big brain to realise it. They have lines that specifically point out that it has been a few years or refer to events in that timeline to show there has been a jump. You're honestly slow if you can't tell when watching that there are just 3 different stories.

3 characters story lines, jumping EXCLUSIVELY forward in time to notable events in their lives. It's an intro season where you learn each characters backstory. and as in the books, these people have been alive a long time, we HAD to see massively different timelines.

Again, yes they could have made it clearer, no it wasn't so bad that the avg viewer couldn't understand what was happening after enough massive in show hints were dropped.

You are forgetting we are living in an age where movies need put big bold letters on screen to tell the audience exactly what city/country the movie is showing and then also usually have characters say the exact same information again in dialog.

[Witchblade77]

They aren't.

Maybe this is a matter of opinion, obviously, but I would place his writing skills closer to John Norman than to GRRM. In fact he makes the same writing mistakes as the first ancient author mentioned:
a) unnatural / unrealistic conversations just to cram a bunch of (sometimes irrelevant) world building into a paragraph
b) unnatural / unrealistic conversations between characters just to cram a bunch of their background history into a scene

The -ideas- and plotlines are good though, but the way he writes them out is very basic and not enjoyable to read.

The claim that the books were anything special is just completely wrong. It took an obscure indie dev company to make three games about it before finally striking gold with the last one and giving the books some known prominence in the world. The books itself have been ignored in obscurity for decades for a reason...

that reason being that they were originally written in language other then english and published in a country other then US.

are those books pinnacle of writing? no. but lets be honest, neither is GRRM. yes, i said it. GRRM is not this amazing writer that people claim he is. he's just pretty decent at taking inspiration from historical events and people and squishing them ever so slightly into just enough fantasy elements to call it a fantasy, but not so much as to make it unpalatable for critics that cannot stomach actual fantasy that is not ashamed of being fantasy genre fiction.

personaly at least... i have enjoyed witcher books even in less then perfect translation far FAR more then anything from GRRM, so... /shrug.

[Biomega]

GRRM isn't, like an AMAZING writer, but he's a very good craftsman. He writes well. He has his flaws and idiosyncrasies, but by and large, ASOIAF is the product of a long career as a writer and the expertise to tell of that journey.

The Witcher I can only judge by the translation so I can't say if it's the same quality as in the original. But even from story structure etc. (which is largely preserved in translation) it's not that great writing. The world building is good, but the execution isn't quite top level. It's still good for your average fantasy series, don't get me wrong - there's a LOT worse out there, even among "serious" works (and not throwaway trash novels), but there's also a lot more better books.

There is no doubt that The Witcher took off because of the video games, not because the books were particularly amazing.

That being said, things that went wrong in the way the TV series is told are also the fault of the TV writers. They could have made sure the source material is transmitted better. I personally didn't find the time lapses too hard to follow, but I get how people might. And that's something that could have been easily remedied.