The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[Delekii]

How about "Hold those who try to shut you up in utter contempt and disregard and keep voicing your opinion and critique" ?

Yes, that was covered in option 2: whining.

Name checks out, though.

To be clear: Nobody cares if you don't like it or whatever; everyone is free to dislike whatever they want, and voice that complaint.

It's just hilariously funny when it's extremely clear that what you want from the product is absolutely not what the creator of that content wants, and you think something is going to be achieved by claiming they are acting in bad faith, or acting with "an agenda" or "a message", as if you don't have one yourself in whinging about theirs.

It's very similar to when right wing crazies complain about youtube and twitter censoring them and cancel culture and every other such nonsense complaint. Personal property and liberty and all that are everything, until its your content or your message that someone isn't representing on their platform or in their show, then it's all "agenda, message, censoring, cancel culture" waa waa waa.

[Okacz]

Why are you making it out like Geralt is a sylvester stallone character?

And the books are called "the witcher" for a reason.

If the showrunners/writers dont like the source material, maybe they should create their own characters rather than using it as a vehicle to backdoor in their failed solo projects because no one actually gave a shit about their ideas so instead they hijack popular material and characters like Geralt.

Despite the "witcher" name, the saga has multiple focus points. I'd say it's more Ciri focused than anything, Geralt is the main PoV character in less than half of the whole story.

And yeah, in the books he's a way more interesting character, at least to me. There are some layers to him. He's a sort of a failed witcher who failed to completly remove his emotions from the game, he's constantly having an inner struggle between staying neutral and doing what's right. He's well educated and eloquent (he can say other things than "hmm", yep), in fact his internal philosophical monologues are among the most annoyingly drawn out parts of the novels. In the show he's just a quiet asshole.

That's what the show couldn't capture, it removed the nouance from some of its characters and instead introduced a lot of pointless concepts that feel completly out of place, like those obelisks.

[Surfd]

Hey how about not shitting on source material when all you have to do is re tell the story in the adapted format. Theres always a bit of creative room where appropriate but theres a reason the story is a success and just changing things for an agenda or political statement isnt a compelling way to create art.

Unfortunately, you aren't going to find a lot of people who agree with this point of view here. I mean, just take a gander through the Wheel of Time TV series thread. Straight boatloads of people sucking off the absolute butchery of the source material that thing turned into, all with the same excuses you will hear here.

[Mehrunes]

And if you don't like what they are doing, maybe you should create your own series and stay true to the source material with your own money?

I love the new cool that people think they are with whining about other people adapting stuff, as if they have any say whatsoever in what the adapter does with the source more than the adapter has over the source in the first place.

If you don't like something, say you don't like it, or don't consume it, and move on. Heck, critique the shit out of it. But pretending like you have a say over what someone else wants to make is nonsensical. Nobody, in any genre, with any source material, at any time, has a mandate to make their product what you want it to be.

(I quoted this post because it was one of the most direct claims as such in the last few pages, but this applies equally to a whole lot of people here, and in the Lord of the Rings threads, and the Wheel of Time threads, and... so on so on. The list goes on.)

You're just engaging in special pleading to silence criticism that for some reason offends you. Saying that people behind bad adaptations are creating bad adaptations and perhaps they should do something else if they're not actually interested in, you know, adapting the source material (with Witcher's writers being outright disdainful of it as per the former members of the show's own writing team) is perfectly valid criticism. Something that you pretended to be in favor just one paragraph earlier. Only for you to twist yourself into a knot over how that's somehow not allowed, because you say so. In a manner that's outright facetious to boot, because you went on how @RobertoCarlos doesn't have a say in what someone else is doing, when they phrased their post only as a mere suggestion at best (though it's more of a rhetorical statement).

[Delekii]

You're just engaging in special pleading to silence criticism that for some reason offends you. Saying that people behind bad adaptations are creating bad adaptations and perhaps they should do something else if they're not actually interested in, you know, adapting the source material (with Witcher's writers being outright disdainful of it as per the former members of the show's own writing team) is perfectly valid criticism. Something that you pretended to be in favor just one paragraph earlier. Only for you to twist yourself into a knot over how that's somehow not allowed, because you say so. In a manner that's outright facetious to boot, because you went on how @RobertoCarlos doesn't have a say in what someone else is doing, when they phrased their post only as a mere suggestion at best (though it's more of a rhetorical statement).

Who's silencing criticism?

You can criticize all you like. I can also criticize your criticism. You have the right to an opinion, you don't have the right to opine it unopposed.

The criticism that "people shouldn't adapt things if they don't want to stay true to the source material" is extremely disingenuous, and almost universally means "this adaptation doesn't align with my world view", usually in terms of being too woke/pandering to (insert your breed of -ism here)/agenda/just wants to push out a message.

There is no intrinsic necessity for any adaptation to stay true to the source material. If they break the contract with the owner of that source material, the owner of that source material can take it up with them. Beyond that, they are making the story they want to make, in the manner they want to make it. You can criticize it all you like in terms of YOU not liking it, but pretending they have failed to fulfill some requirement of the adaption code that doesn't exist is nonsensical at best. They don't owe you, or the source material, shit.

It's funny how few adaptions that meander stupidly far from the source material but which DON'T move toward racial inclusion/gender norming/whatever other hot topic of the day is don't cop the same slack from you adaption sticklers. It's amazing how similar specific factors can indeed be identified in nearly all adaptions that people seem to draw ire with. DOWN WITH ADAPTION.. unless it's not woke, then its fine!

[Fortress of Arrogance]

You're just engaging in special pleading to silence criticism that for some reason offends you.

Nah, he's not as much as silencing people, but rather puts labels onto them, dictating the course of action they should take according to him.
Putting aside that he has no authority whatsoever to decide for others what to do or say, I find it peculiar that he labels voices of displeasure and/or critique as "whining".
I think it speaks a lot about his character, or his, let's say, "leanings".

[Sorshen]

There is no intrinsic necessity for any adaptation to stay true to the source material. If they break the contract with the owner of that source material, the owner of that source material can take it up with them. Beyond that, they are making the story they want to make, in the manner they want to make it. You can criticize it all you like in terms of YOU not liking it, but pretending they have failed to fulfill some requirement of the adaption code that doesn't exist is nonsensical at best. They don't owe you, or the source material, shit.

Pretty pathetic take, and exactly why most adaptations fail. You probably liked how Netflix managed like Cowboy Bebop. But you're right, they don't 'owe' us, they can just get cancelled and lose their job when the ratings tank.

[Darkeon]

Who's silencing criticism?

You can criticize all you like. I can also criticize your criticism. You have the right to an opinion, you don't have the right to opine it unopposed.

The criticism that "people shouldn't adapt things if they don't want to stay true to the source material" is extremely disingenuous, and almost universally means "this adaptation doesn't align with my world view", usually in terms of being too woke/pandering to (insert your breed of -ism here)/agenda/just wants to push out a message.

There is no intrinsic necessity for any adaptation to stay true to the source material. If they break the contract with the owner of that source material, the owner of that source material can take it up with them. Beyond that, they are making the story they want to make, in the manner they want to make it. You can criticize it all you like in terms of YOU not liking it, but pretending they have failed to fulfill some requirement of the adaption code that doesn't exist is nonsensical at best. They don't owe you, or the source material, shit.

It's funny how few adaptions that meander stupidly far from the source material but which DON'T move toward racial inclusion/gender norming/whatever other hot topic of the day is don't cop the same slack from you adaption sticklers. It's amazing how similar specific factors can indeed be identified in nearly all adaptions that people seem to draw ire with. DOWN WITH ADAPTION.. unless it's not woke, then its fine!

This post gives very big "Legality versus Morality" vibes. There's always one discussing the legality of something when the topic at hand is the morality of it.

[Orby]

I don't think I will ever stop being fascinated about how different people can read the same books and draw such different conclusions to them solely due to their own biases and expectations.

Its a common trait in media now to have this mindset, and I kind of get it from an artistic point of view, copying stuff is boring, but adding your own twist is fun. But I also feel that if that's your stance you shouldn't be given that material in the first place and instead use that material to make your own story. But doing so wouldn't generate the views because it doesn't have that popular IP attached so they bandwagon the IP use the stuff in that IP because that's the full package and then twist it to make their own story. Lure people in with the promise that their familiarity would hold some people on.

There are many iterations of Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Robin Hood and other fairy tales, I kinda feel TV media is doing that same thing what books have done to other books over the years, give their own take...

Faithful adaptations only come when someone wants to do a faithful or near faithful adaptation (because I believe there is never a 100% faithful adaptation). Otherwise we get someone who just wants the IP to do their own thing. Its somethign you are never going to stop becuae tis been happening for centuries.

[Delekii]

This post gives very big "Legality versus Morality" vibes. There's always one discussing the legality of something when the topic at hand is the morality of it.

Morality?? Are you joking?

There is no necessity for any adaption of any source to use any part of that source, legal or moral or otherwise, unless it was agreed upon prior by the owner and the user.

Any such moral quandary is invented entirely in your head.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty pathetic take, and exactly why most adaptations fail. You probably liked how Netflix managed liked Cowboy Bebop. But you're right, they don't 'owe' us, they can just get cancelled and lose their job when the ratings tank.

Very few of those adaptions outright failed; cowboy bebop might be one of the extremely few that did - probably because it was a crap show in it's own right.

On the other hand, despite all the noise that gets made by evangelicals on this forum, The Witcher is going into season 4, the wheel was the most popular show on the platform for the year, and 30 million people or so watched the rings of power on release week.

Classifying any of those shows as anything but outrageous successes for their creators would certainly fall under the umbrella of "pathetic take".

[Darkeon]

Morality?? Are you joking?

There is no necessity for any adaption of any source to use any part of that source, legal or moral or otherwise, unless it was agreed upon prior by the owner and the user.

Any such moral quandary is invented entirely in your head.

Yet, here you are debating what the show writers are allowed to do versus what the target audience expects them to do.

[Fortress of Arrogance]

>Extremely few adaptations failed

Cowboy Bebop
Death Note
Watchmen
The Watch
The new Charmed
Batw*man
The Winks Saga
Wheel of Fail
Rings of Poo
The Shitcher


And so on and so forth

Yet, here you are debating what the show writers are allowed to do versus what the target audience expects them to do.

Touche!

[Delekii]

Nah, he's not as much as silencing people, but rather puts labels onto them, dictating the course of action they should take according to him.
Putting aside that he has no authority whatsoever to decide for others what to do or say, I find it peculiar that he labels voices of displeasure and/or critique as "whining".
I think it speaks a lot about his character, or his, let's say, "leanings".

You mean like demanding that the owner of the rights to the show you don't like create it in the manner you see fit?

[Fortress of Arrogance]

You mean like demanding that the owner of the rights to the show you don't like create it in the manner you see fit?

Or rather like the owner of the rights claiming they are doing an adaptation which respects the original source, actually walk their walk.

[Delekii]

Yet, here you are debating what the show writers are allowed to do versus what the target audience expects them to do.

I'm not debating what show writers are allowed to do; there is no debate to be had. They are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want.

I'm debating the voracity of your claims that they have aren't making shows that they want, and that audiences want, given the outrageous amounts of money such shows have made. IE: outlining the cognitive dissonance between the echo chamber here and reality.

- - - Updated - - -

>Extremely few adaptations failed

Cowboy Bebop
Death Note
Watchmen
The Watch
The new Charmed
Batw*man
The Winks Saga
Wheel of Fail
Rings of Poo
The Shitcher


And so on and so forth



Touche!

And as I quoted, many or most shows on that list are somewhere on the line from modestly to outrageously successful, objectively. Subjectively.. who gives a shit about your opinion when most of those shows have large viewership?

It's all good though, keep beating that echo chamber drum. At least you'll have something to do while you don't watch these shows they keep making, for some odd reason, even though you say they are all poo.

[Biomega]

I'd be curious to know how many SUPER FAITHFUL adaptations of something have actually done really well. You could argue the PJ Lord of the Rings movies; what else?

I see a lot of claims around of how obvious it is that being super faithful to the source would make something super successful. Do we actually have good evidence for that? Specifically, do we actually have evidence it works BETTER for success than changing the adaptation?

[Delekii]

I'd be curious to know how many SUPER FAITHFUL adaptations of something have actually done really well. You could argue the PJ Lord of the Rings movies; what else?

I see a lot of claims around of how obvious it is that being super faithful to the source would make something super successful. Do we actually have good evidence for that? Specifically, do we actually have evidence it works BETTER for success than changing the adaptation?

I mean.. holy fuck have you SEEN the bewitched movie with Nicole Kidman? Literally he only movie I have ever walked out of, it was completely faithful and I actually fell asleep!

/Tongue in cheek

No but really, it was bad.

[Darkeon]

I see a lot of claims around of how obvious it is that being super faithful to the source would make something super successful. Do we actually have good evidence for that? Specifically, do we actually have evidence it works BETTER for success than changing the adaptation?

I would wager it helps a lot having writers that do not despise the available media and original works of the show/movie they are working on - be it adaptations or completely faithful works.

[Jastall]

I'd be curious to know how many SUPER FAITHFUL adaptations of something have actually done really well. You could argue the PJ Lord of the Rings movies; what else?

I see a lot of claims around of how obvious it is that being super faithful to the source would make something super successful. Do we actually have good evidence for that? Specifically, do we actually have evidence it works BETTER for success than changing the adaptation?

Even the PJ films cut a lot of stuff; Tom Bombadil, Barrow-Wights, bunch of side characters that were mostly elves, the Wild Men, the Scouring of the Shire, among others. Some of it was entirely justified but to this day I still lament the lack of Scouring which is the capstone event for the Hobbits as characters. And of course back when they released the films had plenty of detractors saying that they were too violence-heavy, didn't remain faithful to some characters (which I agree to an extent, Denethor got butchered), had poor pacing, that Gimli's hair isn't the right shade, so on and so forth. Christopher Tolkien famously didn't care for them much. So building them up as this flawless adaptation no one had issues with is a bit puzzling to me.

Rings of Power certainly deviated a lot more, however. But it's still not Shadows of Mordor/War level of lore devastation and sheer WTF. We haven't seen a Balrog turn into a sexy succubus or whatever the hell Shelob was in that game.

Anyway, any adaptation has to undergo changes. Different mediums are different and it would be folly to try a 1:1 conversion of book to TV series, or theatre to film, or whatever. Trick is to do the right changes. Even celebrated adaptations, such as the early seasons of GoT or the good MCU movies made boatloads of changes from the source material, sometimes for the better such as the aging up of the Stark kids or scaling down of the Wall in GoT.

[Pratt]

Pretty pathetic take, and exactly why most adaptations fail. You probably liked how Netflix managed liked Cowboy Bebop. But you're right, they don't 'owe' us, they can just get cancelled and lose their job when the ratings tank.

I think that the majority of people who watch these shows are not familiar with the source material.