Page 89 of 102 FirstFirst ...
39
79
87
88
89
90
91
99
... LastLast
  1. #1761
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulfric Trumpcloak View Post
    I didn't see anyone complaining about the witcher 3 because every character was white.
    Because usually game audiences and movie audiences aren't the same.

  2. #1762
    Legendary! Nnyco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Haomarush
    Posts
    6,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    The thing that has confused me all the time, both in the game and series (haven't read the books) is that everyone is hating the witchers. The witchers according to the information online are way stronger than normal humans, can take tons of beating, are extremely dangerous and are not afraid to kill.
    It's similar to mages in the witcher world, but there are mage wards so I can understand while the witchers are immune to magic so they are more dangerous.
    So why the hell do I watch normal humans start fights with witchers, even when the human is alone? It seems like really bad writing to me.
    Its almost like those are some backwater idiots.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    Crabs have been removed from the game... because if I see another one I’m just going to totally lose it. *sobbing* I’m sorry, I just can’t right now... I just... OK just give me a minute, I’ll be OK..

  3. #1763
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    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.
    again. its not that the games are so much better, or the books are so much worse. its because books were written in polish and published mainly in eastern Europe. there are a LOT of VERY good books that american audience is unaware of unless there are games and sometimes... even IF there are games. for example. STALKER games. are loosely based on very VERY good sci-fi book. which you are probably still unaware of, but that doesn't make that book bad. it just means that american audience still thinks that they are a center of the world and anything that doesn't completely revolve around them, must not be very good.

    did games make people aware of the book series? yes. yes they have. but the books stand on their own merit nonetheless, games merely created "right time, right place" situation for them

    like... lets say another popular series of books. Fifty shades of gray. would you honestly, genuinely call them good writing? i wouldn't. and yet, they are far FAR more popular and well known than many MANY much better books in the genre.

    also. tell me. how many people knew about Game of thrones prior to the show? not as many as you'd thinks. oh the books were known among fantasy reading crowd, but they weren't that big phenomena up until HBO series. its kinda why all those "people reacting to red wedding" videos took off, becasue there were THAT many people who haven't read the books and had no idea what to expect. so... there is a lot out there that I would say is better then GoT. better world building, better writing.

    right place, right time.

    as an aside. Triss in video games is CD Project red invention. they took a small side character with very little characterization beyond "she is a sorceress who is Yennefer's friend and who had crush on Geralt strong enough to seduce him into sleeping with her with magic, except he still continued to love and want Yennefer" - and they turned that concept into this male fantasy. no wonder so many players prefer her to Yen and are unhappy with her show depiction (which is much closer to the books)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    No, it follows the same storyline as the books. I'm not sure exactly where or when the games pick-up on following the lore of the books, but I've always been under the impression that the games took place after the books.



    In the books, sort of, Geralt is always the main character to my memory, but the other two play a central part in his storylines.
    games take place after the books. in books early on - main character is Geralt, but it switches to Ciri as a main character fairly soon. part of the reason why show wanted to introduce her earlier than in the very first story collection that bulk of first season is based on. it would be weird if actual main character wasn't even in a first season.

  4. #1764
    I don’t know how people are having so much trouble with the timelines, by the 3rd episode it’s pretty clear. It’s not a twist or anything.

    Maybe watch the show with subtitles or something...

  5. #1765
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    The thing that has confused me all the time, both in the game and series (haven't read the books) is that everyone is hating the witchers. The witchers according to the information online are way stronger than normal humans, can take tons of beating, are extremely dangerous and are not afraid to kill.
    It's similar to mages in the witcher world, but there are mage wards so I can understand while the witchers are immune to magic so they are more dangerous.
    So why the hell do I watch normal humans start fights with witchers, even when the human is alone? It seems like really bad writing to me.
    Witchers get hurt, mauled and/or killed by normal humans several times in the books. They are dangerous, but far from invincible. As others have mentioned, a lot of people probably underestimate witchers or simply don't believe they have any special abilities.

    At first I had a much bigger issue with the amount of hatred towards witchers, given that they help keep some pretty terrible things at bay. Monsters and monstrous beasts are pretty common in the Witcher world, so it's not like people would shun witchers due to the monsters mostly being gone.

    I've since come to accept this notion, considering the implications of a "mutant" is in this world. With some exceptions (ie dopplers, vampires and werewolves) - most monsters are obvious as such - necrophages, griffons, nekkers, etc. Being a mutant means having monstrous qualities, despite being fully human. It's not farfetched that some humans would fall to prejudice and hatred of mutants. A human with monstrous qualities that may or may not align with their non-human physical features is probably pretty scary to most folk in a world of medieval culture and technology.

    Also consider that Geralt is an exceptionally benevolent and moral Witcher - if someone with a more malevolent and/or selfish disposition travels through a region, the fallout is probably severe. This could easily color perception of Witchers for generations - as stories are told and retold, even a minor transgression by a Witcher may turn into a tale of a murderous freak demanding outrageous payment and leaving nothing but mayhem behind.

  6. #1766
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    9,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Kallor View Post
    Triss isn't that important in the books, nor is Fringilla
    they sure are, not main characters, but are important, even more when they appear later

    no necessity to change then entirely

    The witcher books describe characters, sure, but my point is that for Tolkien language and ethnography was more important than even the story. He made up a story for the world the created, so that world should be treated with more "respect" in an adaption than is necessary in a Witcher-adaption.
    im lost, what are you talking about here?
    Last edited by Syegfryed; 2019-12-26 at 08:55 PM.

  7. #1767
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    again. its not that the games are so much better, or the books are so much worse. its because books were written in polish and published mainly in eastern Europe. there are a LOT of VERY good books that american audience is unaware of unless there are games and sometimes... even IF there are games. for example. STALKER games. are loosely based on very VERY good sci-fi book. which you are probably still unaware of, but that doesn't make that book bad. it just means that american audience still thinks that they are a center of the world and anything that doesn't completely revolve around them, must not be very good.
    I'm not saying the books must not be very good because they're not American. I'm saying that I personally think the books AREN'T very good because I've READ them. I'm very familiar with non-US/non-English Science Fiction and Fantasy. I've read extensively, and written extensively on that very topic. I'm also not from the US, either. I know there's a treasure trove of fantastic but underappreciated SF/F works out there that the larger English-speaking audiences are unlikely to ever get to read, or will want to read. I'm working on translating one such book right now, as a matter of fact, but I have no illusions about how widely it will be received.

    And yet all that is irrelevant to the actual quality of a work. If something isn't written all that well, that isn't the fault of the mainstream. The Witcher is not a case of "this is just too different, people don't understand" - it's very standard fare for the Fantasy genre, actually. The Slavic mythology behind it is a nice touch, but doesn't make it substantially different from the general legacy of Tolkien-esque Fantasy works. And it certainly doesn't mean you need to read the books in a completely different way, or that basic tenets of writing such as story structure etc. are suddenly wildly different.

  8. #1768
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    9,743
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    again. its not that the games are so much better, or the books are so much worse. its because books were written in polish and published mainly in eastern Europe. there are a LOT of VERY good books that american audience is unaware of unless there are games and sometimes... even IF there are games. for example. STALKER games. are loosely based on very VERY good sci-fi book. which you are probably still unaware of, but that doesn't make that book bad. it just means that american audience still thinks that they are a center of the world and anything that doesn't completely revolve around them, must not be very good.
    That is true, i recently find by accident, the chronicles of hagen von stein, and damn, its a fucking good story imo

    Pity the book only exist in german, and the autor is dead

    and are unhappy with her show depiction (which is much closer to the books)
    well, both descriptions are 'wrong", per say but the show is not much closer than

  9. #1769
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    I'm not saying the books must not be very good because they're not American. I'm saying that I personally think the books AREN'T very good because I've READ them. I'm very familiar with non-US/non-English Science Fiction and Fantasy. I've read extensively, and written extensively on that very topic. I'm also not from the US, either. I know there's a treasure trove of fantastic but underappreciated SF/F works out there that the larger English-speaking audiences are unlikely to ever get to read, or will want to read. I'm working on translating one such book right now, as a matter of fact, but I have no illusions about how widely it will be received.

    And yet all that is irrelevant to the actual quality of a work. If something isn't written all that well, that isn't the fault of the mainstream. The Witcher is not a case of "this is just too different, people don't understand" - it's very standard fare for the Fantasy genre, actually. The Slavic mythology behind it is a nice touch, but doesn't make it substantially different from the general legacy of Tolkien-esque Fantasy works. And it certainly doesn't mean you need to read the books in a completely different way, or that basic tenets of writing such as story structure etc. are suddenly wildly different.
    I'm not saying its so very different. i'm saying its unknown becasue its not ammerican. I'm saying its unknown because its less accessible. things that become popular here are things that are made super accessibly mainstream. and i'm not saying mainstream is immediately bad. i'm saying mainstream is best know cause its most easily accessible. and it has nothing to do with actual quality of the book. Witcher book were obscure for US public (and specifically US public, they were pretty big for decades in Poland and surrounding countries) not because they were not good enough, and not because they were too different, but because they were NOT originally published in English in US. games made them more accessible, true, but that's all they did. GoT books were relatively obscure until HBO show.

    I've read Witcher books as well, and I think they are pretty darn good. there is a LOT to work with in them. are they perfect? no. but are they good? YES. and like I said, even in not so great translation, I find them to be much more readable then SOIAF.

  10. #1770
    Quote Originally Posted by Arrowstormen View Post
    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.
    That's a risky proposition, since The Witcher is about a lot of things - politics, morality, hunger for power, handling your enemies etc. So you might as well film Kevin Spacey running for president, call it The Witcher In The White House and argue that the bigger picture is more important than the details.

    But it's not what the books are about that makes them good - that had already been covered for centuries over and over.
    It is how they are written and how the stories are told. By altering those stories in an attempt to make them "better" one faces comparisons with the original material.
    And one might find out that the public is not impressed by the changes.
    Last edited by stevenho; 2019-12-26 at 10:49 PM.

  11. #1771
    If they're going to do a TV series on this, then it needs to be big. With all the fantasy elements and creatures in it, they shouldn't go cheap on the effects/CGI.

  12. #1772
    Pandaren Monk Voidism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In the shadows!
    Posts
    1,974
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexaDill View Post
    If they're going to do a TV series on this, then it needs to be big. With all the fantasy elements and creatures in it, they shouldn't go cheap on the effects/CGI.
    The tv series is already out. Go watch it on Netflix.

  13. #1773
    Banned Syegfryed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Darkshore, Killing Living and Dead elves
    Posts
    9,743
    so, Mark hamill as Vesemir? seems pretty ok to me

  14. #1774
    Herald of the Titans The Oblivion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Skizzit View Post
    I have a feeling this is going to have to be constantly brought up, at least for the foreseeable future, but this series is not based on the games, it is based on the books. Triss is not a redhead in the books, she is described as having chestnut or auburn air i.e. a brownish red pretty much just like she does in the series. She is also, from what I understand as I have not read the whole series, a less important character in the books.
    her hair is quoted as chestnut the exact number of times it is quoted as red in the books. soooooo...

  15. #1775
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,277
    Toss a coin to your witcher! Watching episode 4 right now. So good.
    -------
    Quote of the month:
    All interesting problems are soluble.
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to pre-determine the future.

  16. #1776
    Funny how reading through these comments you can see the folks that have and haven't read the books. Which I don't say to be elitist or condescending, but the editorial style with multiple timelines and perspectives is straight from the books.

    Also there's not really that huge of a difference in the ways the characters are presented. Triss definitely took some getting used to, but the woman is most definitely a redhead. Though if Morgan Freeman had a child with a redhead there's a good chance the kid would be a redhead too. (Fun facts, the genes for redheads are in most every culture. For red hair to express itself though both parents need to carry the gene. Also Ghengis Khan - a mongolian FYI - was a redhead with green eyes.)

  17. #1777
    Quote Originally Posted by Voidism View Post
    The tv series is already out. Go watch it on Netflix.
    youtube has better version. Search for "witcher game movie". 3 episodes.
    The 2nd episode is called Assassins of Kings. 3rd is called Wild Hunt.

    Netflix is very low budget. LoL at the Triss actor.

  18. #1778
    Quote Originally Posted by Witchblade77 View Post
    GoT books were relatively obscure until HBO show.
    I didn't realize the new york times bestseller list was "obscure."

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by xenogear3 View Post
    youtube has better version. Search for "witcher game movie". 3 episodes.
    The 2nd episode is called Assassins of Kings. 3rd is called Wild Hunt.

    Netflix is very low budget. LoL at the Triss actor.
    You are the type of fan Douglas Adams warned us about.

  19. #1779
    Legendary! callipygoustp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    6,935
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    Toss a coin to your witcher! Watching episode 4 right now. So good.
    That dam song... stuck in my for a couple days. Bard has a pretty solid voice and those Witcher jingles.... good stuff.

  20. #1780
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    The thing that has confused me all the time, both in the game and series (haven't read the books) is that everyone is hating the witchers. The witchers according to the information online are way stronger than normal humans, can take tons of beating, are extremely dangerous and are not afraid to kill.
    It's similar to mages in the witcher world, but there are mage wards so I can understand while the witchers are immune to magic so they are more dangerous.
    So why the hell do I watch normal humans start fights with witchers, even when the human is alone? It seems like really bad writing to me.
    I can get people not liking Witchers (they are the product of magic which is widely disliked in the setting) but what I do indeed not get is people fighting them and standing their ground to the last man after the guy effortlessly cut down people in the blink of an eye. Like, seriously, this freaky dude purposefully hunts down and solos giant monsters for a living and barely has a scratch on him. He's so fast and skilled with a blade that you can barely see him wield it. Use your brain, he's probably too dangerous for your band of thugs with sticks and swords.

    Then again, it's the same trope that has thugs shoot Superman or random henchmen thinking they can take on Captain America or something. The story needs idiots for our intrepid heroes to use for target practice.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •