The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Like i said, i don't deny the changes were made, im just saying one is worse than the other

But how is one worse then the other when they are both just the writer changing the character how ever went with no explanation as “They changes with time” would only be valid if it was actually egknowledged in the setting.

No, no no, don't attempt that, your point is basically saying "if he didn't mention she was wise every month of every year she lived, of course there is a spawn of days in that period of that that she would act as a dumb insufferable twat"

no, that's not how it works, the book already establish her in the moment the story took place as someone who was not an insufferable twat, instead, of someone who already lived ten thousand of years and was wise

If this happened BEFORE the time the book is trying to adapt(when she was like 100 years old), or much after the events of lord of the rings, then that would be less of a problem

There’s a reason why I put “in the age” when I first brought it up, I’m not saying it has to be every day week month year or even tens of years just one mention of the mindset of the character in the thousands of years the each age covers.


And just like Glad the Witcher books establish in there own story’s how the characters are and there all grown adults (other then Mabye cirr) they shouldn’t be having drastic changes out of no where any more then Glad should be having.

Like the time gap between ages is thousands of years and the gap between the Witcher books and games is only 5, even counting for elvish immortality it’s far more likely an elf would change drastically over that time compared to the humans in the witcher.

[Syegfryed]

But how is one worse then the other when they are both just the writer changing the character

Because one, the changes were different, two the intent is different, three, the result is also different

you are saying change = change, forgetting there is different degrees of change, just like a crime =/= crime, a robbery isn't the same as murder just because they are both crimes.

There’s a reason why I put “in the age” when I first brought it up, I’m not saying it has to be every day week month year or even tens of years just one mention of the mindset of the character in the thousands of years the each age covers.

And, he books don't depict the characters after the book is finished, so changes that happened there will not affect the book story, at all.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Because one, the changes were different, two the intent is different, three, the result is also different

The intent and arguable the result depending on how you mean it is the same in both cases the writer of the game/show had the intent of ignoring what’s already there to do there own thing and the result of both is ending up with characters that don’t actually feel or act like there book counter parts.

The changes them selfs are different and thus end with differing quality’s but in both cases the writers were going for the same thing which is to have there own version supplant the book versions.

And, he books don't depict the characters after the book is finished, so changes that happened there will not affect the book story, at all.

of course changes will effect the story of the book if the vampire dies in the book but then is suddenly alive that’s changing the story of the book, as is changing character relationships, adding extra powers to monsters, reframing threats like the wild hunt ect.

To stick with the LoTR comparisons the trilogy comes after the hobbit was already finished but still changes it like making Gollum a corrupt hobbit where he wasn’t originally.

[Syegfryed]

The intent and arguable the result depending on how you mean it is the same in both cases

No, we already know the intent was different, there is no need to discussion any further because it enter forbidden topics, but we know its different and the writters said herself. The result is also different because the game is loved and liked by many people people and didn't fuck over the story of the books since it happened after it

of course changes will effect the story of the book if the vampire dies in the book but then is suddenly alive that’s changing the story of the book, as is changing character relationships, adding extra powers to monsters, reframing threats like the wild hunt ect.

No, the story of the book will stay the same, it already happened, this new story is after the book is done, it only affect the character and not the story

It would change if, the game/show was adapting the book, and in the game/show he was suddenly alive

To stick with the LoTR comparisons the trilogy comes after the hobbit was already finished but still changes it like making Gollum a corrupt hobbit where he wasn’t originally.

And the change of Gollum being a hobbit in lotr books changes nothing in the hobbit books

[Lorgar Aurelian]

No, the story of the book will stay the same, it already happened, this new story is after the book is done, it only affect the character and not the story

the story of the book objectively doesn’t stay the same if you are going off of the game, the game existing in the first place is proof of that given how the story of the book ends.

And the change of Gollum being a hobbit in lotr books changes nothing in the hobbit books

I mean JRR would disagree given that he published new editions of the hobbit with changes to the story to bring it in line with the trilogy.

[Syegfryed]

the story of the book objectively doesn’t stay the same if you are going off of the game, the game existing in the first place is proof of that given how the story of the book ends.

Youa re going to keep changing circle on this one, despite all things saying otherwise, so there is no reason to keep talking about this

I mean JRR would disagree given that he published new editions of the hobbit with changes to the story to bring it in line with the trilogy.

And what in the story changed with that? we knowing what gollum race was change what in the hobbit? does the story does not play exactly the same? lmao

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Youa re going to keep changing circle on this one, despite all things saying otherwise, so there is no reason to keep talking about this

your right there is no reason because your just objectively wrong as again the games existing in the first place is a change to the story of the books because of how they end.

And what in the story changed with that? we knowing what gollum race was change what in the hobbit? does the story does not play exactly the same? lmao

No the story doesn’t play out the exact same because gollum no longer gives the ring freely after playing a game and is instead tricked and enraged and wants it back.

The author him self published changed versions of the story to egknowledge this.

[Syegfryed]

your right there is no reason because your just objectively wrong as again the games existing in the first place is a change to the story of the books because of how they end.

Except the part that the story of the books being the same since the game is a story after the books

No the story doesn’t play out the exact same because gollum no longer gives the ring freely after playing a game and is instead tricked and enraged and wants it back.


The author him self published changed versions of the story to egknowledge this.

Now you are talking about other stuff, the change of him being a hobbit changed nothing into the story, what changed was Tolkien himself changing the events because he seem better that way

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Except the part that the story of the books being the same since the game is a story after the books

again just objectively wrong.

Now you are talking about other stuff, the change of him being a hobbit changed nothing into the story, what changed was Tolkien himself changing the events because he seem better that way

JRR didn’t change the hobbit just because it seemed better he changed it to tie it directly into the trilogy better and all of the changes around Gollum and the ring were done for that sake.

It was a finished story that was then changed by one that took place after it and that change was even reflected in future editions of the book.

[Syegfryed]

JRR didn’t change the hobbit just because it seemed better he changed it to tie it directly into the trilogy better and all of the changes around Gollum and the ring were done for that sake.

It was a finished story that was then changed by one that took place after it and that change was even reflected in future editions of the book.

Again, the creature called gollum being a hobbit or not, change nothing to the story, what change are the things he purposely wanted to change.

Being changed to a hobbit -> does not affect the story
changing what happened in the book with the character -> does affect the story even when it does not change the final outcome.

You know something that would also not change the original story? if they make a story in the future about Smeagol grandgrandgrandchildren

And that is not even going to the territory of tolkien changing his own shit, and not another bad writer changing published books.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Being changed to a hobbit -> does not affect the story
changing what happened in the book with the character -> does affect the story even when it does not change the final outcome.

theses two things are one in the same Gollum being changed into a corrupt hobbit is the reason why what happens in the book with him is changed.

He goes from a fish man handing out treasure to the same as Bilbo but twisted and corrupted by the ring to be inline with the trilogy.

And that is not even going to the territory of tolkien changing his own shit, and not another bad writer changing published books.

your right bad writers shouldn’t change published books which is why CDPR shouldn’t have let there bad writers touch the witcher books and change them to fit there game.

Instead of using Cirir and her grandgrandgrandchildren as the main character.

[Syegfryed]

theses two things are one in the same Gollum being changed into a corrupt hobbit is the reason why what happens in the book with him is changed.

Him being changed to a corrupt being is a change that alter the story of the hobbit book, slightly, because the outcome is the same, but changing his race, does not change the story. of the hobbits books, since his race as hobbit only comes up relevant in the lords of the rings

your right bad writers shouldn’t change published books which is why CDPR shouldn’t have let there bad writers touch the witcher books and change them to fit there game.

The main difference here though, is that the games are not adapting the books, but creating a story after it, and the game is good highly praised, even with the changes, unlike the show, so again, those are not remotely the same, no matter how you try to force it.

You are always trying to bait into this same argument that all changes are the same because they are changes, when this is clearly not the same

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Him being changed to a corrupt being is a change that alter the story of the hobbit book, slightly, because the outcome is the same, but changing his race, does not change the story. of the hobbits books, since his race as hobbit only comes up relevant in the lords of the rings

the chance to race is relevant in the Hobbit a it’s the whole reason he no longer gives the ring freely and instead try’s to get it back because it has corrupted him.

It changes the whole content of the scenes with him and bilbo and the scenes them selfs were changed so reflect what the ring does to some one instead of Gollum just being an unrelated fish.

The main difference here though, is that the games are not adapting the books, but creating a story after it,

which didn’t stop them from letting there bad writers change the story of the books instead of using great grand children.

You are always trying to bait into this same argument that all changes are the same because they are changes, when this is clearly not the same

ya I’ve never once made or tried to make that argument.

All the way back in my second post in this exchange is even said it’s unknown rather the changes are on the same level.

[Syegfryed]

the chance to race is relevant in the Hobbit a it’s the whole reason he no longer gives the ring freely and instead try’s to get it back because it has corrupted him.

Nope? because a human could be corrupted just the same, not wanting to give freely and wanting back later, again, his race change has no relevancy in the hobbit, only in the lord of the rings.

ya I’ve never once made or tried to make that argument.

Nah, that is the entire reason you are keeping going on this, othewise the subject would have being dropped, since you are saying stuff about the game and their writers, even when we already know they changed and no one said they didn't

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Nah, that is the entire reason you are keeping going on this, othewise the subject would have being dropped, since you are saying stuff about the game and their writers, even when we already know they changed and no one said they didn't

This you ?

No, the story of the book will stay the same, it already happened, this new story is after the book is done, it only affect the character and not the story

Except the part that the story of the books being the same since the game is a story after the books

[The Oblivion]

https://kotaku.com/the-witcher-seaso...utm_source=YPL

LMAO "Witcher Producer Blames Young American Audience For Viewership Decline"

Blames bad writing on people being too dumb to understand the witcher

[Deadite]

https://kotaku.com/the-witcher-seaso...utm_source=YPL

LMAO "Witcher Producer Blames Young American Audience For Viewership Decline"

Blames bad writing on people being too dumb to understand the witcher

Blame the fans and never yourself if your show does poorly. This is the way!

[Xilurm]

https://www.ign.com/articles/netflix...ful-for-us-too

Speaking to Polish outlet Wyborcza, as translated by Redanian Intelligence, executive producer Tomasz Bagiński said the Witcher's story can't be pulled directly from Andrzej Sapkowski's books because it wouldn't make for good TV, and having to make changes is difficult for the writers too.

Difficult because they have to come up with their own stuff I'm certain, not because they think it's sad that they have to change it.

"When a series is made for a huge mass of viewers, with different experiences, from different parts of the world, and a large part of them are Americans, these simplifications not only make sense, they are necessary," Bagiński said.

"It’s painful for us, and for me too, but the higher level of nuance and complexity will have a smaller range; it won’t reach people. Sometimes it may go too far, but we have to make these decisions and accept them."

So, were Americans too dumb for season 1-4 of Game of Thrones? Because the complexity there is what made people watch the show. Season 5-8 is when they started making things up, and that's when people started criticizing it. Just like with the Witcher.

Changes don't just come as a result of these "simplifications", however, as Bagiński explained the nature of making TV and sticking to production deadlines causes other issues.

He literally just contradicted himself. Why is this guy full of shit?

[Koriani]

Maybe the Polish producer just hasn't watched enough americanized tv shows of the last few years to understand that, actually, American TV viewers aren't the dumb ones anymore. Maybe he missed the numbers on how popular the books and video games were OUTSIDE of Poland and Europe, in the last ten years. And maybe his being out of touch is partly why yeah, the show is the way it is.

Shows like "Better Call Saul" and "The Bear" (just the two that came to me first that I personally watched) point to exactly how intelligent the US viewer is, and how nuanced you can be, in a tv show and still be successful and understood by the masses.

Or maybe people talk bullshit because its all shoveling to cover themselves and make excuses. Because no one of them are going to come out right now and say "Yeah...we fucked it, its all our fault. Sorry guys." You get those admittances 10 or 20 years after a show flops, in back--story interviews (on say a podcast or something lol) when people are finally far enough away from a project or the people involved to feel they can be more honest and not have their careers tank or get blacklisted.

I mean even Stephen King waited for Kubrick to die, out of respect, before starting to really admit openly about the problems he had with Kubrick's Shining. And he certainly didn't have to worry that saying so would effect his career.

Right now - you ain't gonna get the truth out of them even if they KNOW they're talking lies. Too soon. Too dangerous. And I don't blame them, not many people will risk their careers just to admit "yeah, we failed at that."

[Cynical Asshole]