The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[Biomega]

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.

[Syegfryed]

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

[Witchblade77]

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.

[stevenho]

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.

[AlexaDill]

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.

[Voidism]

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.

[Syegfryed]

so, Mark hamill as Vesemir? seems pretty ok to me

[The Oblivion]

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...

[PC2]

Toss a coin to your witcher! Watching episode 4 right now. So good.

[Shelly]

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.)

[xenogear3]

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.

[Shelly]

GoT books were relatively obscure until HBO show.

I didn't realize the new york times bestseller list was "obscure."

- - - Updated - - -

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.

[callipygoustp]

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.

[Jastall]

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.

[Shakana]

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...

I don't find it difficult to understand too. They are showing how other characters are made, and the beginning he doesn't even have the scars or beard, and for example on the wild hunt he has scars and beard and ciri has same scar as him.

I can only say i love the series and i just got a bit annoyed with the actresses they chose to portrait triss and yennifer is ok but i would imagine her a bit more like eva green, jennifer connely or rachel weisz style. Ciri is too young to tell something as i know her older.

I'm only at 5th episode and i want to see how it unfolds and when he gets his make up scars done. I mean if they are focusing so much on how all started even yennifer deformed i'm guessing with time, they will focus more on geralt. Remember it's not a movie, but tv series, they need material to give it more seasons too. They are just starting.

[Witchblade77]

I didn't realize the new york times bestseller list was "obscure."

- - - Updated - - -



You are the type of fan Douglas Adams warned us about.

new york times bestseller list has all kinds of stuff most people have never even heard of. which is why i said "relatively" Witcher books are extremely popular in Eastern Europe. there WAS even a TV show prior to netflix AND prior to video games. it wasn't great, but it did exist. CD project red didn't just pick them up because reasons, anymore than HBO picked up GOT on a strange whim.

in any case. I think Jaskier might be my favorite. actor is very charming and that voice.... was watching Witcher interviews and apparently he actualy plays the lute and even brought it to his audition

[Queen of Hamsters]

Haven't played any of the games, haven't read the books.

Had no issues with the timelines, the varied kinds of humans being shown (because I'm not an asshole) or the special effects (it has a higher budget than GoT had initially, fyi).
Not a masterpiece, but I'm sure as hell going to stick with this show, because I have a feeling it won't just arbitrarily kill off 50% of its characters when it runs out of ideas.

Also, Cavill... Yum. I thought I'd struggle viewing him as the kind of man I'd seen in Witcher 3 trailers, but he's more than believable. I hope he'll eventually grow out some white stubble on his face though!

8.4/10. Now let's hope Netflix won't cancel it willy nilly like they have so many shows.

[apples]

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.

just because you know someone is superpowered doesnt mean other people do. the characters in the movies dont have the benefit of also being an audience member

[Shelly]

new york times bestseller list has all kinds of stuff most people have never even heard of. which is why i said "relatively" Witcher books are extremely popular in Eastern Europe. there WAS even a TV show prior to netflix AND prior to video games. it wasn't great, but it did exist. CD project red didn't just pick them up because reasons, anymore than HBO picked up GOT on a strange whim.

in any case. I think Jaskier might be my favorite. actor is very charming and that voice.... was watching Witcher interviews and apparently he actualy plays the lute and even brought it to his audition

Fair enough and I agree. He makes the series very interesting and he straddles the line between charming and annoying well enough that you sympathize with Geralt a lot. He also has excellent chemisty with Yennifer so the few scenes where you get all three of them going at once are fantastic.

[Jastall]

just because you know someone is superpowered doesnt mean other people do. the characters in the movies dont have the benefit of also being an audience member

If that's about the superheroes, they're worldwide celebrities who save the world every other week. Any ignorance on their adversary's part is inexcusable.

In the case of Witchers, the random person might not know all their capabilities, but if you tell me "this guy's job is to find the biggest, ugliest, most terrifying monsters in the land and kill them for profit, also he's made of magic and stuff", I would give the man an even wider berth than if you told me he strangles bears for fun. Plus again, that doesn't excuse the myriads of times that random thugs don't beat it and flee for their lives when it's clear they're up against a medieval Jedi for whom they might as well be flies that he can swat with impunity.

I can get not being respectful of Witchers, but open contempt and hostility towards people with such dread reputations always struck me as downright stupid if not suicidal behavior. Geralt had just showed that he could have absolutely butchered the crowd at the end of Episode 1 had he wanted to for example, but no one seemed cowed by him somehow. I'd run for the hills after seeing anyone mow down 10 armed men without breaking a sweat, not throw pebbles at him.