Hey Guys, I hope you guys enjoyed today's video. As per usual, it took me far longer than it really should have to make this because procrastination is a constant enemy. But if you liked the video and want to help me in making more, then please do support me on Patreon. When you help me out there, it seriously does make a difference, and it directly supports me in creating more of these videos. Also, I have a bunch of rewards there like a discord server where you can talk to me and other subscribers and get early access to upcoming videos. There's a link in the description if that sounds good to you :D Anyway, thanks for watching, and I look forward to seeing why I'm wrong down below, - Henry
@Zombobo Smith I'm fairly sure they actually answer that in-world. From my understanding, Geralt took the standard trails very well, so he was singled out for experimentation and they tried many new trials on him.
They could’ve done a chokehold & destroyed the market. They could’ve starved the town and allowed the citizens to leave, but not return & choke him out.
Seriously im kinda amazed it took 2 more seasons for people to stop watching this shit show after i barely got through season 1 i was done so much dogshit like not even 1 good episode in its entirety.
Another point about the "helmet removal" scene: in the books, Duny keeps his helmet on until the clock strikes 12. As he removes it, his hedgehog face is revealed and everyone gasps in shock. You see, Calanthe *knew* that Duny would show up, so she instructed the bells to be rung an hour early to expose him as the "monster" he is.
Exactly, and the very reason she called for Geralt to be there in the first place, which is why she’s so pissed when Geralt outright refuses to kill Duny instead of leaping up and offing him. She misunderstands Geralts modus operandi, And Geralt is semi on to her plan too at this point in the book.
@@KeytarArgonian yer I read the book not long ago and at first I thought it was going to be a different story sense they gave him a monster contact just to get him there
Another one major change is that in the book Geralt knows that Pavetta is pregnant and he chooses the law of surprise, bcs he knew that the child will have more chance to survive the mutation. In the show they made a joke from it.
@@KeytarArgonian Admittedly, I didn't actually pick up on a lot of the structural problems discussed in the video because I had read the books and thus I did understand what was going on. But one thing I definitely DID notice is that Geralt is at the party for a completely different reason. In the show, Jaskier/Dandelion brings him along as a sort of bodyguard. In the short story, though, he's there at Calanthe's request, which makes a lot more sense, because as you mention, she knows Duny is going to show up. In the show she seems to know who and what Duny is, same as in the short story, but ... doesn't have any plan for him showing up? She just sort of notices Geralt at the party and is like "Ah, perfect, a witcher has fallen into my lap. HE can kill the monster that will show up demanding my daughter's hand. What a stroke of luck!" It does a real disservice to her character.
The defense of the writers in this video did not age well. It turns out they actively dislike the source material, really hard to adapt something when you actively hate it.
@@elevenm.a.1125 I think you mean when he sued CDPR for more money because he sold the IP cheap by the time of witcher 1 and didn't expect witcher 3 to be so popular and wanted more money
@@skdeathxlife No, I mean exactly what I said. He did it after discovering that CDPR sold Witcher rights to Netflix. That''s because Polish law does not accept "I don't like that Netflix will butcher my magnum opus", but it *does* accept "the company bought my IP too cheap and is ripping me off, I deserve compensation". Sapkowski rolled with whatever laws his lawyers could find, as long as it meant he'd get some sort of 'damages' for the breach of trust. He was very explicit about movie adaptations of his works - which, after a disastrous Polish movie, was "over my dead body". CDPR knew he'd veto the whole thing if they asked him, which is why they did it over his head. The whole 'he just wanted more money' thing is just online backlash from people who don't understand the situation.
@@elevenm.a.1125 Not that I don't believe you but gonna need a source on that (edit I could not find any sources it's as I remember it being about royalties)
Dont forget, they made Vilgefortz who arguably the strongest sorcerer who ever lived fight so poorly. In the book hes able to take on Geralt, Yennefer and won he also killed a HIGHER vampire. While in the netflix adaptation he cant even beat some dude in a weird ass armor.
To be fair the show is still in the time before the main story of the books Even starts, so he has plenty of time to level up. I don‘t think this is as much of a hurdle as some of the other things, since he might have just gotten stronger over time.
...beat some dude with a sword. WITH A FUCKING SWORD, CARL! Imagine this: he used his powerful magic not to kill a man (who he met only in the end of the story btw), but to conjure a strip of iron. Pathetic
@@MrSobe00 Sapkowski made a great original story and added a fairy tale element in the backstory of one character. Lesser Evil is not based on a fairytale, even loosely. plz stop repeating that, it's just incorrect and hurtful to the author.
Completely agree. Especially because yennifers backstory was nowhere near as prominent and detailed in the books, definitely not the first one. Especially because I think its a weakness of the book series that they include more and more different characters while Gerald looks for ciry without accomplishing anything for two whole books. For me, it really lacked story progress after a while...
@@legendarylitening I think other ones are just as good, I'm on book 6 and having both Geralt and Ciri as protagonists works really well. Ciri moments are even more interesting at this point.
Ciri and Yennefer are introduced perfectly well in the books without Sapkowski having to have 3 simultaneous main characters. If they just adapted the stories as written, it would have been gold. It almost seems Hissrich thought she could write it better but a lot of the series' plot is almost unrecognizable from the books (especially looking at you, episode 3), and most of it ends up being nonsensical. The writers made a complete mockup of it all.
This! Chick fancied herself a better writer but only proved how incompetent she is. Henry carried this shitshow that would otherwise only be slightly better rated than Batwoman.
That's what a lot writers adapting fantasy books seem to be doing nowadays, it was like that with The Wheel of Time as well, they have a hatred for the story and the belief that they could improve upon it in everyway
@@destinpatterson1644 Yep. She even admitted that she didn't like Eskels character so turned him into a dick that gets turned into a Leshen in the show. Pathetic
15:00 the last episode is called 'Something More', but that message is also completely lost. In the books, Geralt finds Ciri. Ciri asks. "Am I your destiny, Geralt?" To which he replies. "No. You are something more." In the show the whole conversation becomes. "wHo iS yEneFer???"
Also, that reunion centers around the line, "People linked by destiny will always find one another," when the point of that encounter was that destiny and fate aren't strong enough on their own for such a connection.
@@rodynzhaku4711 And to me that killed the show because the characters are moved by destiny not their choices so why bother watching the rest. It's all destiny and destiny alone. The people in it don't matter anymore.
The entire time I was watching the show, I was thinking "Man, there is no way anybody who didn't read the books (or doesn't already know the stories from different source) has any idea what the hell is happening right now." I know the books quite well and even to me it took a while until I went "Oooh, this is taking place fifteen years before the previous episode! Maybe it would have been a good idea to indicate that somehow."
I was so hopeful for this series, as I can share my passion with my friends who have heard of the franchise but never played the games or read the books. I watched it together with a friend and he didn't have any reaction to any of the scenes, I was fucking confused too, and I've read some of the books and read wiki lore.
The fact that they didn't even say in like title cards or something, that the time periods were different annoyed me. It was only after the Yennefer scene where she's escorting the Princess that I realised it wasn't all set at the same time, so I checked online only to see how far out each story was timewise.
Bruh to me after watching the whole series i was able to piece together easily when everything was happening, it was kinda fun too. Sure it was weird at first, but after seeing Yennefer interacting with Geralt i was like, "oh so we were seeing Yennefer and Geralt's past and Ciri is in the present and we are working up to that got it".
I should be a fairly good yardstick on this: I had not read the books or played the games, but I am pretty well versed in fantasy tropes. My verdict is, sadly, that there were several times where I felt a bit lost. The show had been hyped so much and while I felt some parts of it were really great, others looked either really cheap (like the dragon), or just... off - probably for the reasons outlined in this video. I'm still hopeful for season 2 though.
"The lesser evil" also makes every heroic action of Geralt even more heroic. He doesn't want to choose the lesser evil because in this chapter he has been taught not to. But sometimes he has no choice. Sometimes he needs to leave his neutral role and be a hero for example in the battle of the bridge (You know what I mean if you read the books). At least thats what it's supposed to be like. Netflix kinda failed to show us such things. They somehow manage to show us most of the story but leave every deeper and secretly important part of the story completly out.
In that chapter Geralt says multiple times that if he is presented with evil and lesser evil choices, he'd rather not choose at all. So while you read you think: Is there a lesser evil? What would I choose?. Or you disagree, like me, thinking that if you can minimize damage it's worth choosing the "lesser evil". And towards the end, Geralt links the dots and understands Renfri's plan and starts running towards the market. So the village elder asks him what is he doing and Geralt says something like: "I have to choose the lesser evil". That chapter, like most of the saga, was a great experience, that makes you think and evaluate these concepts deeply.
Yeah, I agree with you, you should have mentioned also the Hedgehog Knight's response. "You lie, queen. I did not force your husband into a promise when he was in trouble. I saved him and got him to safety, and only then, he, on his own volition, insisted that I choose the reward." Also, Queen Calanthe is revealed in the book to have adjusted the palace clock, so that Midnight strikes at 11:50 PM, before Hedgehog can turn into normal person face (He can only be normal from Midnight to Morning). So he takes off the helmet, true to his word and under peer pressure, but is humiliated because the face is still hedgehog.
Why not do the short stories first? Set up Geralt as a tough, battle hardened mercenary while also developing the world while hinting at the other characters and future plots? They aren't extremely long and detailed books, and if something is given in too much detail or explanation, it seems as though it can be fixed by the visual media.
I have never read the books and what I got from the first episode was that geralt asked renfri to leave so he wouldn't have to choose between killing her or stregobor. But she decides to stay and kill him anyway so geralt killed her men and her. The show didn't pass the idea that she had a plan to kill the entire town whatsoever. When she said she woud kill everyone it sounded like "I will kill everyone in my way", not that it was her plan the whole time. For someone who didn't read the books it's like a completely different story
Unfortunately that's problem with most of the first season. I've read books several times and couldn't believe how they butchered some of the most impactful stories. Or even cut them completely (like meeting between Geralt and Ciri in Brokilon - very important and completely removed).
That episode was butchered to shit lol in the books it almost felt like Geralt and this woman had a connection in the show she kept stalking him in the woods and saying random buzz words from the book that didnt quite fit. That episode got it the worst the others weren't as bad and were fairly accurate as they could be in shorter run time but I can barley watch that one.
@@lf9177 Bro that was the best story and is my favorite story from any book every Geralt and ciris first meeting is amazing like he wrote them like actual people playing off eachother very well plus ciri is hilarious. Its dumb how they did the ending too where they meet again but in the show thats the first time in the book you think she is dead and Geralt is like about to cry and sees her and runs to her in front of Dandelion who knows Geralt as not this type of guy and she says "I am your destiny Geralt dont leave me anymore" and he says "I wont ciri I wont" and it ends. I never cry but that scene gets me everytime cause its set up so well...man the show really fucked that up.
@@lf9177 Oh god that was one of the worst. I mean the driads had that isolationist attitude and complete hostility. It did a lot of world building in the conflict between the elves and the humans while showing the meaning of destiny along with connecting us and Geralt with Ciri in a meaningful way. I mean even the scene where Geralt is wounded protecting the merchant and is hurt in the cart was horrible. I mean in the book we learn that a sorcerous was being sent for before Geralt's mother shows up and the way its potrayed in the movies makes it seem like some kind of fever dream with Geralt hallucinating. I cannot believe how badly they butchered the series to the point where the meaning of the stories almost seemed to have the opposite meaning that it did in the books.
This same thing happens with Terry Pratchett adaptations. The actual adventures are normally ridiculous but they're normally metaphorical or witty or explorations of humanity. The TV shows are literally just the events.
Season 1 should’ve just been Geralt imo would’ve made the episodes way more enjoyable and they could really focus the time on the dilemmas that he’s faced with as a Witcher
This is exactly what I would have wanted to see as well. The stories could have been fleshed out more, important characters in those stories could have been given a much more faithful representation, such as the elves and Yennefer. Instead what we got was, in my opinion, a rushed mess, with shoehorned in characters that will later become important. Freaking Vilgefortz for example
I agree. I love Yennefers storyline in the series but it would have worked just aswell later on. If only they had the patience to make that decision and trusted in an audience to meet new characters later on and not get confused. Anyways theres still plenty more to come with 7 seasons planned.
I like Yen's backstory so I just would have liked for them to remove the Ciri scenes and the whole build up that leads to the third book, and instead maybe only have the scene in Cintra with the curse and Geralt meeting her later in Brokilon forest without knowing she's his child of surprise like in the books. Have season 1 be an anthology series that follows Geralt and Yennefer through the decades, their problem romance and all that, and have the season end with each arc reaching a nice climax (the battle for Sodden and Geralt meeting orphaned Ciri) And leave the prophecy storyline for season 2 and onwards. As it stands season 1 is an incoherent mess with no properly defined themes.
From my perspective, the first season should have focused on just the seven stories of "The Last Wish", with Yennefer's tale mixed in them and an entire episode dedicated to her. By cutting the weakest part, Ciri's side of the story, and saving it for the second season for a proper story for her, we get a greater focus on not only fewer things to juggle but get greater time to explore them. The only reason why they included Ciri despite her not appearing in the first good was to draw in "The Witcher 3's" fans, who knew who Ciri was and massively liked her. This is fine in theory, but putting it in practice showed the flaws in doing that. Saving Ciri for the next season, once Geralt and Yennefer were firmly established, would be much easier and allow them to adapt all short stories of the second book, which was the most gutted of the two.
I completely agree and thought this same thing after finishing it. The first season should have been 5-6 episodes of The Last Wish including Yennefer's backstory throughout episodes culminating in the Last Wish short story. Ciri's plot was completely pointless and therefore ruined some of the most vital parts (like Something More) and didn't even include Sword of Destiny which is the necessary former counter part to Something More. Sword of Destiny should have been the second season, then continue the saga from there.
@@kanglongshankz3313 And the funny part is that the showrunners kept saying that they wouldn't be influenced by the games, which they clearly were considering Ciri isn't even mentioned in the first book (apart from when they talk about her mother being pregnant). Her existence in the shows harms the whole experience. And let's be fair... Ciri wasn't needed. Fans of the books would be perfectly fine with her only showing up in the second season and the fans of the games would still love Geralt's and Yennefer's parts because they are fans of the world and its characters. Lots of people seem to forget that the thing is called "The Witcher" and not "Geralt and his superfriends". Despite being other very relevant characters in the story, Geralt is and always will be the main star, with him having the best moments overall. So robbing time that could have developed him and replace it with "Girl goes from A to B" is annoying to say the least. And they also robbed us of seeing their best moments together, like in their journey through the dryad's forest! It's one of the best short stories and we'll never see it realized because they simply had to include it right at the first season!
Yennefer does not need that much of screen time Imo. If they continue that way they might as well call the show "The Sorceress", my point is that everything they show about Yennefer is either made up or briefly mentioned later in other books, wich gives her a misterious aura and then Netflix comes in saying "So yeah, here's all of Yennefer's backstory".
@@pituino I don't quite mind her parts, as they are quite good and well made, but the problem comes with the showrunners trying to do too much all at once for this season. I think what they could have done is adapting the seven stories of the first book while sprinkling her parts here and there. And then when they adapt the short story where Geralt is recovering from fighting the Striga (think that was the name of the monster the princess became), they invert that and do the "Yennefer Episode", as in that particular short story Geralt doesn't do much besides lying around healing. Again, the actress playing Yenn did a fantastic job and they could have included her parts without major issues, but Ciri is the one stealing a third of the time while giving a quarter of the results the other two gave.
@@ionga I agree with you, they are well made and the actress did a good job. I don't like it because I feel that it is completely unnecessary and the time could be used in other important things, like Geralt and Ciri meeting in Brokilon or making a better job on the other short stories. I also find it very infuriating what they did with the magic in the show like it's an exchange. I really don't know how they're gonna do the Korath scene with Ciri looking around to find sources and the fire incident. And all the little things at Aretuza that are completely absurd like turning students into eels, or the simple fact that Fringila is there. In short, I find that those scenes could be better used to explain the story instead of all that bullshit.
I actually saw a lot of great potential in the show. The acting and action were both the highlight. Sure, they could've had the timeline thing executed better but with everything in line I'm looking forward to season 2.
As a witcher die hard fan I really enjoyed but as someone who knows the universe super well even I was confused. Apart from that the only thing I didn't like was Triss's casting. Looking forward to season 2
The production value is top notch. But, like a lot of adaptations, they try to cram too much story in small segments. As a result, a lot of important story content is taken out for the sake of run time. Big mistake.
such a shame they dont take a piece of got, where its slowly getting into the shit, without cramming everything into 1 season, which makes it just confusing. still dont understand the "fanboys" who defend this timeline system
@Pinkaugust Well if it is harmless spider just leave it be. Invading and scaring humans doesnt seem much of a reason for us witchers to kill the spider :D
End of season 4 is when it started to really falter. I mean specifically Tyrion vs Tywin scene. But it was good enough. Attack on Titan is as good adaptation of source material as one can get right now but they still have 1 season to go so who knows
Game of Thrones may be poorly adapted, but it was an amazing show, building suspense and improving with every season until they were done with Season 4. After that Season 5 came, and with it the downfall of the quality of Game of Thrones.
@@Kurpitsamehu some of the stuff they cut from the character arcs really hurts it. Book Jon is so much more interesting, same as Cat, Robert, Eddard, Tyrion, Sansa, Sandor.... you know what lol its literally everyone is dumbed down and far less interesting.
Geralt waking up with knowing the market is a target was always funny to me and I just realized it's because that's basically the scene in one punch man where Saitama bails on a partially completed plotline because he realises he needs to go shopping immediately.
LOL an OPM reference in the comment section of The Witcher, I love it! Although it's essentially marketed as a satire battle anime, OPM actually has great depth once you look for the layers.
Cahir is not an evil man depicted in this series. He's just a soldier doing his duty. Nilfgaard is not some evil empire who obsessed with wanton massacre and destruction. Foltest is not some fat weak king who go through his food like a pig. He's a handsome, well built man with a keen intelligence and clear mind.
To be fair, while initially Nilfgaard might come across as just this medieval Nazi doppelganger jumping onto defenceless kingdoms at will, later into the season they do blur the lines quite a bit, most notably emphasizing Cintra's holocausting of the elves and Nilfgaard's appeal to the poor and downtrodden (Sapkowski himself seems to have based them on the USSR rather than Nazi Germany).
@@yarpen26 "...Cintra's holocausting of the elves..." which is also weird because I don't remember Calanthe being a dick to elves, in fact she was quite peaceful but hey you know can't make a badass woman without turning her into a mindless killing machine according Netflix so there is that.
@@yarpen26 Nilfgaard has a German vibe to it, but not a Nazi vibe. It is more akin of German Empire or Teutonic Knights. This plays around with Polish perceptions of Germany, being both seen as a conquering power, but also a country more developed and better organized, to which many Poles have emigrated freely. Another good comparison is Roman Empire (even named after their capital, like Nilfgaard is). They were seen as brutal conquerors by the people they fought, but themselves saw them as bringing civilization and order to barbarians.
11:00 so true. The scene of the massacre at the market was the strongest in the book, as we were shown that the massacre had begun in the midst of the crowd and no one understood who started it. Everyone thought it was Witcher. But there was no massacre in the series, there was only a battle of arrivaled bandits (about whom locals do not care) with Witcher on *empty streets.*
The biggest failure of the show is its lack of depiction on how Geralt and Ciri are fated to find eachother no matter how much Geralt fights it. The story where they meet in Brokilon forest was completely cut along with several other bits that all come together perfectly in the end
I have never read the books and understood that just fine from the show. I guess they could have showed it more but it's just a first season, there's so much you can do while also introducing the characters and world.
@@ignajara how? They literally just meet and somehow know and then hug. It depicts nothing like what he's talking about from the book. The show wasted almost a full episode with that dumb changeling and them going in the Brokulon forest.
Queen Calanthe was a billion times better in the books. I found her extremely captivating to read. She was like a masterful poker player. She had exploited or bent all the rules in her favor, or she just broke the rules, if she could get away with it. She could get away with A LOT because of how feared and clever she was. Even in defeat, she kept her head high. This was a terrifying antagonist to Geralt, but also a very human one. Geralt had to defend his morals against her, despite constant threats of execution and torture, which she made in the middle of a witty and classy conversation. She enjoyed her games. But then, the stakes were raised, and Geralt had to defend the law of surprise against her as well, even though it would cost her her daughter and granddaughter. So when Calanthe is bested by Geralt, it elevates Geralt. When even she cannot bend the law of surprise, it shows that this is something far greater than human laws. When Nilfgaard finally takes Cintra, you know Nilfgaard is nigh unstoppable. When people speak of Ciri as the lion cub of Cintra (in reference to Calanthe's title as the Lioness of Cintra), that means something. Calanthe elevates Geralt, the law of surprise, Nilfgaard and Ciri. What does the show give you? She starts off as MCU-Thor without the humor, and then never acts like that again. Then she is constantly trembling, or scowling, or bawling her eyes out. Then she loses in the most undignified manner. Every. Time. Why? Because they skipped her victories and backstory, portrayed her badassery and human side in the laziest way imaginable, and only showed her defeats.
It often depends on what they are willing to pay and that also includes the rights. I don`t know how it is with the rights of the witcher, but with the netflix adaptations from daredevil and other marvel series they were only alowed to do this many episode with specific lenghts per episode. For each season they had to rebuy/negotiate how much they are alowed to do. like peter said money matters and producing a show costs money, like salarys for many many people involved. This in a time where more and more streaming services come out for way more competition.
@@Peter_S.Woldrich This first season cost somewhere between $80-$90 million dollars, so approximately $10 million per episode. It really, really doesn't look like it, either.
Maybe they could've cut the Ciri plot and just revealed her at the end of the season (her story was pretty boring imo). With that, they could've focus on Geralt and Yennefer a lot more and all that juicy content you talked about would made it in. Great video and I'm denitely getting those books.
They should have cutted everything after the Sacking of Cintra...the Sacking of Cintra should have been the last thing in the series!!! How Cintrian riders tried to get Ciri to safety, but they were followed by Cahir...and Ciri's dread at seeing the Nilfgaardians!! And then she would wake up, all a nightmare, right next to Geralt...that would have been better!! Instead we get nothing good!!!
They changed Ciris story from the books considerably. While the ending to the show season is pretty much the same as the ending of the second book, it doesn’t really feel that way. In one of the earlier stories, Geralt meets Ciri in the Brokilon Forest. She is there because she escaped her escort on its way to a different kingdom to meet its prince. This is where Geralt and Ciri first bond in the story. It’s probably my favorite of all the short stories, and it has some seriously stiff competition. The back and forth with them is just priceless. In the last story of the second book, Geralt is informed by Dandelion that there was a battle at sodden (only referenced in the books) and is told that Cintra was destroyed and a whole bunch of people died in the battle including several mages. Because of this Geralt believes both Yennefer and Ciri are dead and he feels extremely guilty since Ciri would have been safe if he had just taken her with him after the Brokilon Forest adventure. The result is probably my favorite ending to a book ever
Cut Ciri out of "The Witcher"? Time you get those books and change your mind. Even Yennefer comes in as third character, Ciri is a clear second after Geralt. If anything, they could have dedicated a full episode on Yennifer in S02E01 to get her back story and introduce her but leave her out of S01 in favour of more Ciri time. The child of surprise plot point is vital. You can't shove aside Ciri for more Yennefer or even more Geralt. It's called "the Witcher" but it's mainly not just about Geralt.
It never stops to amaze me - how cluttered and overcomplicated bad adaptations are, and how they always manage to exclude the most important story and tone pieces.
To me it's pretty obvious the things that are cut are things they could show without outright telling us. Yes... all those things that give more foreshadowing and the rich dialogue, give more context into the actions of its characters... all were cut in favor of something easier to show. What the video failed to address is that this is an adaptation. From a book to a show. The same way you can't show every thought of every character on screen as opposed to a book, the same is true for any dialogue. But that's what makes books great. It's the added context to a lot of stuff you enjoy/ed watching. You could argue that since it's a show they have the option to adapt everything correctly without cutting anything since it's not a movie. But at the end of the day... it's meant to entertain in a different medium. Many people keep bringing up the jumping through time parts of the story without any indication... but I understood everything just fine. And that holds true with other people with similar experiences. People that read the book or played the games already are biased. As a book reader you enjoy all that dialogue, the exposition and the foreshadowing that comes through clever writing. I love books for the same reason too. And I do read them. But at the end... I accept the differences, I understand why/how they exist and enjoy them for what they are. GoT is the perfect example for this but I can also bring up Harry Potter. The books had way more stuff in them... did the cuts make the movies worst? That's totally subjective. It's not an objective bad thing. In all 3 instances from the Witcher, to GoT, to Harry Potter and some other examples... I've gone from watching the show/movie to reading the books. I've done the opposite too but that's not important. What's important and my point is... that I enjoy both for different reasons but I still do because they are the same story. Yes, things get cut for millions reasons we know or only can think of, but it's still the same story told through a different perspective. It's not some abomination that gets butchered like Dragonball Evolution or Avatar the last airbender. In those instances the end product... no matter how much you love the story... is not the same. Those are objectively bad. Also... when you say "they always manage to exclude the most important story and tone pieces." that's not necessarily true. Those pieces may be important in written format... but they can be boring on camera. Not everything written can work in live action. And not everything has to work. It's an adaptation for a reason. If the only thing you want is a 1:1 adaptation... then you don't want an adaptation ... you expect a copy of the original done in a different medium.
@@sericsson1996 I think people should start thinking about adaptations as a kind of promotion for the books. Some people who like the show and never read the books before will go and buy and read them. They will enjoy the original story and will see the differences. And people who will not go to buy books will just continue to enjoy the show. They don't care how much it differs from the books, they just like the show and it's fine.
Yeah, instead of finding ways to make something work. They just drop plot points and devices. It's like leaving out certain points in a paragraph that's in Mandarin in order to transcribe it into French. At the end, that beautiful articulate expression of life and death becomes a standard paragraph about how you just live and die as a human losing out in all its contextual meanings.
It wasn't that they cut too much, it's that they added a lot of new material -- such as Yennefer's entire backstory -- that left too little time for more interesting things, like the relationship between Geralt and Ciri. Even so, the best episodes were the ones that focused on Geralt.
Funny thing is that all this cut material was made so Yennefer could get more screentime. Yet in her situation more screentime only made her character worse because we lost all of the mystery and surprise around her. We should first know her as the beautiful and powerfull mage for the information about her past had any imapct on us. It didn't work in other way.
They could give her more screen time and use it to explain politics to the audience. She was a powerful mage for a time and had served various king and important people over the years. We get to see her as a powerful mage, she retains her mystery and the audience know more about the world the story takes place in.
@@vasyajx Renfri told Geralt she will leave town in the morning. In books Geralt trusts her and through Blaviken Mayor random story he finds out she plans to take citizens hostage. In TV Show... well Geralt just wakes up, says "Renfri" and automatically goes to market.
In the show, he never really does choose to fight her. They (Renfri's goons) attack him before he has a chance to even answer. Then she basically forces him to kill her, despite him obviously trying not to throughout the entire fight. It's really badly written.
I remember watching this show (having not read the books) and feeling that nothing made sense except the last episode(s). Having random time skips with little to no indication (like age/appearance at least) made it a whole lot more confusing. Some of the CGI looked like it belonged in a remake of Scorpion King, and that horrible color grading filter they slapped on top of it all didn't make things any better.
Basically, the show didn't depict the books at all, it's so vague and I'm surprised that they manage to extend it to seasons 2, though I think they were other reasons behind it, cause season 1 in itself was pretty bad, even something which most of today's shows(back up with big studios) have in common like good CGI, costumes, Make-up, etc., simply design/art, in general, of the Witcher was at least in my opinion awful...
@@sirperybLakeney my 75 year old grandmother is watching it with me right now and she is asking questions about characters and all that because she is so invested in it. she is having no trouble at all keeping up with the timelines and in fact even figured it out herself because of the scene with foltest. people are just crying about this show because it isnt a 1 to 1 recreation of their book and none of them can accept that TV has to be watered down in order to sell well and fit a budget. id love to see all these die hard fans make their own witcher series if everything everyone else does is so bad right
“It’s not true that I was an unexpected encounter at home, as a child. That’s not how I became a Witcher. I’m a commonplace foundling, Calanthe.” - Geralt, Sword of Destiny pg 307
@@jamtex2 You're correct. ‘He knows this law better than anyone else,’ Mousesack said in a hoarse voice, ‘because it applied to him once. He was taken from his home because he was what his father hadn’t expected to find on his return. Because he was destined for other things. And by the power of destiny he became what he is.’ Sapkowski, Andrzej. The Last Wish: Short Stories 1: Introducing the Witcher (p. 143). Orion. Kindle Edition.
in anime characters have internal thought all the time. "watching a character stare out of a window for 10 minutes straight" is essentially death note, and its fuckin amazing. there is 40 minutes of death note where they literally just walk down a street. its one of the most intense scenes ive every experienced.
But the directing in Death Note is what keeps those thoughts interesting. The animation does wonders too, and the art style emphasizes the emotions of the characters superbly through coloring changes, shadows and movement. I'm not sure if you could pull that kind of experience off with live action. You could approach it, but the animated medium gives you such a large window of opportunity to convey emotions that it is hardly comparable.
@@YourBlackLocal Dexter pulled it off because of his nature of being a "not-very-okay-mentally" serial killer. We need his internal monologue to relate to him at all, and it embraces his perverted nature. When a mentally healthy character starts talking to himself it just seems weird.
The knight: I've come to claim my reward for saving the king Queen: take of your helmet Knight: I can't until midnight *turns midnight* Knight: IT WAS ME, SONIC
Considering the sheer mess that was made out of Season 2, and the way a lot of fan favorite characters were treated in that season... I feel like this would be a great time for this video to have a part 2. At least, I know I'd sure love to see that.
I wouldn't consider season 2 a mess, it was a tad confusing and I don't know how much worse it was story wise compared to the book, but It was a good piece of art. It alone made my Netflix subscription worth it
This channel took an apologia approach to The Witcher, that it's 'too grand to adapt' or that 'books can't really be adapted' which tells me that this youtuber never read any of the material and has no idea what he's talking about but made this video for clicks.
And given even more recent events with some of the information we know now. It goes a long way to explain why the show runners shit the bed the way they did.
To sum up the 26 minute video, If the showrunners removed Ciri and Yennefer and focused solely on Geralt until it was time for Ciri and Yen to be introduced they would have had enough time to adapt the nuance of his character in the books.
You mean adapting the source material by using the source material? Crazy how they had everything presented on a silver platter, just hire people that can shorten it out properly for tv episodes which the first books are already perfect for. Could easily have another GoT with possibility of less of an ass ending but no, had to prove everyone they're better than some Pole and here we are, having the one guy who cared, abandon ship because it was unworkable.
I’m Polish and I grew up with those books. For me, the Netflix adaptation felt not just not loyal to the books, but downright disrespectful of our culture and legends. Yennefer’s character was completely butchered, the whole story with the Striga, the first ever written and possibly most beloved was done so badly I had to stop watching at that point. It was just so bad all around. If only they just stuck to adapting each short story as it was, without trying to turn it into one big narrative with confusing timelines. Let us know Geralt better before introducing Yennefer and then Ciri, only flesh them out more once they start to adapt the saga. Like this, we get a half-baked and unrelatable Geralt, a Yennefer who feels more like a pouty child than an almost 100 years old, powerful witch and Ciri with all her trauma spilling onto the rather lighthearted and sometimes really damn funny short stories. Even Jaskier, though he was probably the best done character in the series, didn’t escape the bastardization as they conveniently forgot that Jaskier was a womanizer and a bit of an idiot, sure, but he was also someone with strong beliefs and will to defend them. How the hell would the Jaskier who once challenged a whole gang of thugs bragging about hunting dyads, the Jaskier who was best friends with witchers, dwarfs, elves, how could that Jaskier ever write mocking racist songs and talk about how you’re not remembered for respect? Ugh.
Close your eyes, take the title out of the picture and then enjoy. It's a terrible adaptation. But, its not a bad show. You want to see something awful, watch Wheel of Time. Comparatively speaking, Witcher was a documentary
@@theccpisaparasite8813 It's a terrible show with bad writing, incoherent plot and cringy dialogue. It's just that American audiance has become so braindead, that they will watch and clap anything containing boobs, muscle, action and special effects. That anyone can give it over 2 stars is beyond me.
The original books are absolutely amazing but I'm really not sure that english translation do them justice. Here in Russia the Witcher saga was a cult fantasy classic long before the games came and I think that a lot of this success can be attributed to the amazing russian translation (thanks to an amazing translator Evgeny Weissbrot, may he rest in peace... actually the last book of the series was translated by another translator and it's really not good). I think that it's even more difficult to do good translation from polish to english since russian and polish are both slavic languages.
@Precog Yeah, I read the last wish in english then chaged to my native laguage for the rest of the books and it was way better. The english versions are more pragmatic, aming to just make sure you get all the info. While the other version makes it as if the info is just there and you take it. It is difficult to explain,
I would think it's easier to translate from Polish to Russian since the languages are related. Harder to English. But I liked the first two books in English though. But then, I can't read Polish so I can't really judge or compare. :P
Translating from one language to another is always difficult. Even strongly related languages have different idioms or rhythms which may hinder readability, punch or presentation. It's why people are still translating Beowulf and the Iliad, because there will never be a perfect translation. That being said, great translators can pinpoint what is most remarkable about a source text and focus on that aspect for the translation. I'm guessing that's what Evgeny Weissbrot did. Similarly, the Dutch translations of Harry Potter were magnificent because they were written with the dry wit and whimsy of the originals in mind. I had heard before that the English translations of Sapkowskis books weren't very good. Sadly, we're probably stuck with them until some other publisher wants to invest in a full translation - which they are unlikely to do. Or, until a fan makes an excellent translation and shares it online. It's too bad, because I really love the lore and grit of the Witcher and I can only really fall back on the translations and the video game (though the last one does compensate hugely for the books).
Books are not that good as everyone says they are ok. They are far better books in the world and the autor has no plan for the story he create in the saga. In orginal the dialogs are the best thing but the world that create Sapkowski only for the plot is kinda empty. There are good characters like Vilgefortz, Regis, Dijkstra, Yen, Bonhart, Fillipa Eilhart, Jaskier, Yarpen Zigrin, Zoltan. They could be far better if autor focused on expanding his mythology by presenting an interesting plot that would not amount to a fight of good and evil. It would be much more interesting if the main antagonist won instead of dying in a pulled way.
If someone hasnt read the books and maybe only played witcher 3 its a 7-8/10show for me simply because of Henry Cavill... But hands down reading the books and know the lore makes this show just trash... But thats how randoms probably think about Star Wars too, if they only watch the movies and dont want to learn the iceberg behind it. Ignorance is a blessing.
As someone whose only exposure to The Witcher is the Netflix series and who considers himself at least a little critical of the media he watches, It wasn't hard to follow. Like, it wasn't amazing, but it was definitely engaging at least. I wasn't checking out and was interested to see what would happen next. And most people aren't looking for much more than that.
Exactly what my gripe with the adaptation is, picked the very two stories/episodes, where I felt the writers totally missed the point. Liked and earned a sub.
It's more like: The entire adaptation: 5/10 That was rough watch for my Witcher pals and I. The show runners had very little clue of what made Sapkowski's work so brilliant.
Even he doesn't have the charm or sarcastic attitude he had in the first season. For some reason,they managed to make him more emotionless and boring with the reason of oh witchers don't feel anything but literally every other witcher in kaer morhen acts as a normal human being, laughing around on Lame jokes
Season 2 was worse for the people who haven't read the books, Even I, who has read the books, was confused most of the time. And again with the explanation at the end in the first episode.
@@samayasidd8161 You sure? I liked it a bit more than the first, and considering how the fanboys in this comments section have been acting, I'm not about to touch those books in a while.
@@hyro3292 All in all the show is pretty entertaining. A lot of us fans just really dislike how its some weird fanfiction instead of an actual adaptation. We don't expect 1:1 tho, theres a lot of boring parts that they could filler out or do something better with. Just kinda sucks this is what we get imo
@@TheButterShowThatsMe Oh absolutely, I wasn't even aware that that was ever an argument haha..the only thing the show nailed was Geralt, and we have Henry Cavill to thank for that.. originally, Geralt wasnt even gonna be in the show
Most disappointing book series I've ever read. Campy writing, most of the short stories and side stories in the saga are just folk tales with a twist. The Character interactions and development are contradictory and inconsistent. Pretty much all the major arcs spoil themselves by revealing the conclusion through narration before telling how the events transpired. None of the characters feel like real characters. 6/10 at best.
@@urekmazino6519 Taking an inspiration from folk tales and folk tales with a twist are a major difference. Show me examples of your "contradictory and inconsistent" character interactions. Never been spoiled on anything, no clue what you're on about. The characters are a take on classic stereotypes that evolve as the story progresses, it's done very well and they do feel like real characters. Hating on something popular won't make you interesting buddy.
@@urekmazino6519 Right now, I'm still on the first short story compilation (The Last Wish), and I'm enjoying it. I like the writing style, and the bits of worldbuilding are enough to keep me coming back. I'm not yet sure if I'll stay for the actual series, but time will tell.
I have not read the books and when I watched the show, I did not quite understand why he was called "The Butcher of Blaviken" after he killed those men, from our POV Geralt just killed some people that was already armed and was also trying to kill a little girl+wizard that was simply trying to avoid getting killed by hiding, but now you're telling me that there was an actual choice Geralt could have made there to avoid the killings BECAUSE he COULD'VE change Renfri's mind... holy shit ok
LOL, I'm the opposite. I listened to The Last Wish audiobook first, and seeing clips from the movie, I'm like, "Who is that?" or "I'm pretty sure Dandelion (Jaskier in movies) was NOT in that scene." The changes are even bigger than I expected, and I'm sad that they cut out "A Grain of Truth." That story would be very fun to see on screen.
I don't think in the book it's clear whether he could have changed Renfri's mind or id Renfri would have killed the innocent people or not. It's possible she was lying about it to Geralt to make him feel bad. She does lie a lot in the story and is obviously trying to manipulate Geralt and using her sad backstory for that purpose. I always got the feeling that the thing is there was no way of knowing and Geralt did pretty much best thing he could have done, it's just it did not work well for him personally. It is something that is a reoccurring motif in the books, that Geralt's heroism goes underappreciated. And the Renfri's story is sad not because she is not evil, it is because she is evil, and it is impossible to tell if she was born a monster or turned into one by people who wanted to gain from it.
@@Zuzannaq That’s all true, all points here could be made and that’s what makes the witcher such an interesting topic for conversation. It is also why it’s such a shame that the show doesn’t seem to incorporate anything beyond generic Hollywood action into itself.
It's Hollywood's obsession with the Big Reveal structure. They think it's cool to reveal the exposition and character motivation after the climax, but in reality what happens is the audience doesn't care about what's happening because they're missing the context. And when the Big Reveal comes the audience doesn't care because they've already tuned out.
And the irony is that series is 8 hours long, and the audiobook is 10 hours, which is just 2 hours longer. But their level of storytelling is very different.
WOOOOOOAH There is a massive error in the "matter of price" segment. Gerlat DID NOT say anything about law of surprise being used on him, Mousesack does. MOREOVER Geralt was not child of surprise, he was dropped at kear morhen by his mother. He clearly states that in his talk with the queen in the last story "Something more". He said Mousesack twisted the fact to suit his goal at the time.
Oh, the inconsistencies in the show... Can't be counted... - Renfri. Geralt tries using Axii on her and she says "Doesn't work, I'm a mutant". Well, that just confirms Stregobor's story, so she is a mutant (mutations are irreversible, as Geralt says) and it means killing her is a good call! Which removes the need for Geralt's moral dillema, troubled conscience etc. In the book, it makes sense (and so does her plan in Blaviken and ultimatum talk). - "Magic works like this: you do smth magic and smth dies. You move a stone and flower dies"... And we never see the principle again... - Doppler turns into Mousesack and says "I know all you have ever known" only to later attack Kahir for "not knowing what Ciri was"?! And what was the doppler's plan when he attacked Kahir, anyway?! - Battle of Sodden is to start, Yen says "I lived 3 lifetimes"... When?! She was about 18 when she saw little Foltest. If she is 98 (like in the books), how old is Foltest then?! So, at best, she was about 68-70 at that moment... Hardly 3 life times... In the book, it is so and actually makes sense (Foltest is 40 in the books, btw)... - "THey took my choice away", says Yennefer about having a baby... Ummm, no... The way it was done in the show, you requested it! And so on, and so on...
You're right. But when reading the story for the first time we think that Mousesack is telling the truth about Geralt's past so it doesn't change what he said about adding context to the law of surprise and about Geralt's behavior.
@@do__ob In the books, Geralt suspected Pavetta was pregnant when claiming the law... It is much later that he said "No, I will not claim the child" and explains why. And Mousesack even, in Brokilon, suggested he would do nothing if Geralt would try to take the child (btw, why wasn't the real Brokilon scene included in the show?! It was awesome and would explain the connection between Ciri and Geralt; this way it is hard to believe the connection even exists if they never even saw each other). Show writers just used "destiny" as an excuse for bad and lazy writing. That real Brokilon scene explains also "there is destiny, but there is also something more". Which we don't see in the show.
@@ivanstepanovic1327 yeah I know. I've read it too and I agree, the relationship between Ciri and Geralt in the series is non existant. They've never met and Ciri only learns about Geralt when her grandma tells her "go find Geralt" before dying, which makes their reunion at the end of the series very insignificant. In the book the emotion builds up through the story, in the show it doesn't. So I agree with you. I was just replying to Naxster about the error in the video about Geralt's past. I don't think it changes the scene that much.
What an excellent breakdown of what went awry in the adaptation. I'm personally very aggrieved that they cut the important parts of the Sword of Destiny short story, namely Geralt and Ciri bonding before the war
I believe it won't go a season and book, So I believe we will have these time jumps during the second season too. Also if you check the budget they did a really good job and the story structure is exactly like the collection of the short stories and the last episode is a really good conclusion.
I’ve been watching it so far and I have to say, things are so freaking confusing as hell. Like from the beginning in season 1, it shows the fight between Geralt and that kikamora monster. Yeah okay, cool fight but wtf is going on? I haven’t read the books or played the games so how would I know what kind of monster that is? Episode 1 would’ve been a whole lot better if it included a short prologue of the Witcher Universe, with Geralt speaking himself, providing brief summary’s of how the universe was created, what chaos is, what Witcher’s are, how he became a Witcher, where he became a Witcher, the ethnic groups, the mages etc and so on and so on and then bam kick right in into what’s going on. THATS how it should’ve started. Imagine if Squid Game started at red light and green light, yeah okay cool but what LEAD up to that event? The story telling is a big problem, it’s too rushed and when a story is too rushed, how can you feel certain emotions from a certain scene when you don’t know the MAIN reason why. They have got to fix this. Great actors, poor story telling. This series has great potential, it just needs to learn from its mistakes.
@@metalrockstarizer89 personal opinion that it didn't need that, as someone who hadn't played the game read the books or looked at anything witcher related prior to the show I think it does quite a good job at explaining those things as the story progresses, throwing all of it in an exposition dump is unnesseccary when it can show rather than tell, also the kikamora can be glossed over since it adds nothing to the story since it is simply "a monster than has been causing trouble nearby" and the visuals do enough to show what it is and the fact that it hurt a deer which was the main point of that scene
@Lelouch Vi Britannia and topography as well.. What about dol blathana, so called valey of flowers. And Netflix made it into some dry canyon or desert or whatever it was 😆😆
@@kristiankopera and then made the village of Dol Blatana into some skyscraper shit. Like how the fuck are they farming there? And also, where was that old Gramgram with a book and her assistant? These were really important character.
@@ninjakoule9878 yeah I feel like they were trying to do something "fantasy like" but for no reason 😆 it almost look like they intentionally did everything wrong...
That's why I liked the polish adaptation Wiedźmin. It's set in Poland and the world looks really believable, with actual historical castles and such (well, they had small budget). When I first saw the american Witcher, I didn't understand why the world looks so over the top fantasy, like from a fairytale.
I've seen it done sometimes on Shadow and Bone, Arthdal Chronicles, etc. Edit: Arthdal Chronicles does it a lot. It's a Korean low fantasy action drama, if anyone's curious. If I remember right, Asian and Southeast Asian shows in general do it pretty often.
You're 15 minute explaination of the missing context in Episode 1, gave me more of an emotional feel than the entire episode did. Just goes to show the writers aren't very good in this show
That's the thing I was afraid the most about Witcher adaptation to the screen. Witcher is quite philosophical. I was afraid that Hollywood will focus on monsters and magic and disregard the philosophical side of the stories. And it feels like that's exactly what they did.
Yes. You are absolutely right. Even the game closer to the books than the show. Cavill did good job in my opinoin, but he whole idea of the show is wrong
@@ekaterinakornyushina7227 So happy someone agrees with me. Game was good because it's done by Polish studio that understands the nuances of the books. I feel like show is extremely simplified version of the books.
@@kamael1125 Yes, this game is brilliant, it was made by real fans of Sapkowski's world. I haven't ever played this game, I watch my son playing and watch youtube gamers' videos like a movie))))). I like this movie more than Netflix series. Yesterday I've found Polish audiobook on youtube. This is masterpiece! I understand about 30 % with my native Russian language, but English subs save the situation.
They couldn't even get the monsters and magic right. Their magic rules are inconsistent compared to the books and even games. Most of the monsters had a terrible CGI and not enough screen time.
I haven't read the books or played the games. I vaguely knew of the existence of them, that was it. And yes, many parts, especially the "The Market" and the stoning afterward, were _VERY_ confusing. Watching this, it makes a lot more sense now. And that is, indeed, the problem. I enjoyed the show. But it did have many moments that were confusing. Some I assumed were due to lack of information (not a great choice,) but others I had zero idea. In this case, I didn't even guess that the books had more information that made it understandable.
Anonymous Freak While its true that this show can be confusing for people who’ve never read the books or at least played the games, I think that that is exactly the point. The show is targeted towards people who are already familiar with the source material and the hardcore fans in general. It already assumes that you know the world, setting, etc. and just serves as an adaptation of the books (not the games). And yes, for a person who has never had any prior experiences with the Witcher, it must seem pretty confusing, especially with the non-parallel timelines of the episodes, but that is because the show is simply geared for a whole other audience. That doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy it as a newcomer to the story of course, but it’s not surprising that it just throws you in the cold water right off the bat.
Willhelm Tell yeah I have to disagree. Netflix threw a LARGE amount of money at this show. I highly highly doubt Netflix of all companies would make this show on that budget to pander to the smaller audience. Also if that was the case I don’t think they would’ve applied such diversity to the cast. Seems like classic Netflix and why cut out things that the fans already knew about if it’s for us already on the ride. I think that it was written to appeal to many while keeping the fandom in mind to make everyone happy.
@@karlmarcs31 ummmmm that's exactly what he did. The townspeople had no idea what was going (on in the books or the episode) - all they saw was a witcher brutally kill all those people for no apparent reason. They had no idea Geralt had just saved their lives and because of Stegobor helping to incite them, it was easy for the townsfolk to turn on him. He resorted to that tactic to save his own skin.
The adaptation of "A Question of Price" turned Calanthe into a brash fighting woman when she was actually a careful, proud woman of guile. She ASKED Geralt to be there because she knew a monster-looking guy was going to claim her daughter. (Although "asked" is perhaps too soft of a word.) She made sure his sword was hidden behind her throne. She didn't chafe at the idea of the banquet, she planned it to try to get what she wanted. She tricked Duny into removing his helmet because she thought Pavetta (or at least the gathered nobles) would never agree to the match. The woman on screen just wasn't Calanthe.
I think that was the beauty of Calanthe character from the books. She is powerfull woman and thats been shown without monger marches against neighborhood rulers (or who it was on the show? I don't really know because I can't handle it more than episode 3). But her power been revealed trough her persona. Even when she asks it feels more like a demand.
But in the show, didnt Geralt say that Calanthe knew Duny was coming, so thats why she wanted him there, next to her? He says something like "you knew he would come and you wanted me to kill him"
@@scott96999 How was Calanthe in the show above criticism? She tried to kill an innocent man her daughter loved, while pretending to accept him. Clearly showing her in a very bad light. Also she was clearly stated to be a war monger who butchered elves.
@@louis8487 In the book, Duny wasn't so innocent. He had specific goal in mind when he execute his plan. I won't say more because it will be a spoiler. Only that this is The Witcher, things are more complex than just right and wrong.
I was honestly confused as to why they decided to do everything out of chronological order. Also the need to shove so many interceding storylines into episodes was so frustrating, it robbed yennefer of all mystery and the "ah, that's why she's like that" moment instead of how it's pretty much explained before we even meet her as a power hungry and powerful woman
I thought I was just too dumb to understand what was going on in The Witcher, so I just assumed it was genius. Turns out, it just lacks a lot of story... I'm glad I watched this video. Now I know I'm not (completely) stupid.
Yeah, the show certainly gives way too much credit to its viewers, myself among them. I actually did have to rewind stuff every once in a while to make sure I got everything. In a perfect show, once started you shouldn't need to touch the remote unless you need a bathroom break or want to make yourself a sandwich.
@@yarpen26 too much credit? What are you even talking about? The show would not appeal to anyone who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the witcher before watching, it is just rushed, pacing is off and leaves the viewer completely lost
This is why I hate the average consumer. They feed you mediocre content and you take it as amazing. You are basically rewarding companies for not giving a shit for quality, same thing happened with GoT
yarpen26 it assumes you’ve already spent a fair bit of money on novels some people might not even know exists. That’s just bad writing. You can play the games without the books just fine, the books further add to the story, but aren’t completely necessary.
The show was exactly what I expected it to be; a rushed, mediocre mess. I loved the books and games and both had so much content and context that made you feel part of the world. The show not only cut the best parts of the first two books but made way too many unnecessary changes. Ironically, this show is exactly how described by Cavill's line in The Last Wish Episode. "It's like ordering a pie and finding it has no filling."
I read The Last Wish, Sword of Destiny, & Blood of Elves, before watching the Netflix series. I thought it was all pretty mediocre and forgettable. The series was as much of a slog as Blood of Elves. But I'm a fan of the games so I'll keep reading. Time of Contempt seems ok so far.
@@robertherrick6703 I was hoping they would cover 1 book per season. Last Wish has so much good content. They would probably have to change the ending on that one because Sapkowski decided to change Geralt's fate a bit. It can be done but you need either Sapkowski with talented writers that he approves of (He's extremely picky with anyone handling his work) or other talented writers on the level of the CDPR team. Lauren Hissrich in my opinion is not a very good Show runner. She thinks she's clever switching through time lines without context and calls it "challenging the audience". All the of good stuff is already in the books, no need to change it, just make sure it translates on screen. Not to mention they fired both the costume director and the special effects team. That right there lets you know they were just throwing away money. I'm actually finishing up the Time of Contempt and it is slow at first but once it gets to the sorceress' party, shit hits the fan! It's so exciting and they really did Vilgefortz dirty in the Netflix show. I don't want to spoil it but it's awesome.
"Netflix's Witcher" and "faithfully" should never come in one sentence. They first cut content from the books, then add some random bullshit, and what's left of the books they twist beyond any recognition.
You can make entertainment not faithful to its original content and still make something good of it. The Witcher games 1-3 are a perfect example of this. They essentially created their own canon, and it is absolutely excellent. This show, on the other hand, left a bad taste in my mouth. It's as though the writers and directors, once they got started, just wanted to get it over with, like a wet fart in an elevator.
i read the first book, which is just a colletion of short stories, and thought "Why couldn't the show just make a stream line event with original content?"
@@dericmederos1514 The saddest part? They made 4 different Spidermans in 20 years, but we'll probably be stuck with this shitty Witcher adaptation for decades.
The biggest problem of the show (or one of the biggest to me) is they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They felt the need to have Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri all at once. Creating stories or situations that didn't happen to give them all relatively equal screen time. And like stated, the actual stories were cut and condensed to make room for a lot of unnecessary segments with Ciri or Yennefer. I also felt like they focused too hard on humans being the only non-monster monsters. Whereas in the books, they show how any person, any race, any status could be, and often were worse that a kikimore. See the Wild Hunt/Red Riders as an example.
Nobody really talks about it, so here it goes: Isn’t the Disney 2005 movie of Narnia: LWW one of the best adaptions ever? Really, as a kid I loved it but recently I reread the book then watched the movie and I think LWW was made really damn well. Even added to some bits of it! The 2 other movies are questionable, but LWW was fantastic.
Stefan van der Sandt yes, exactly! LWW proved that a director doesn’t have to shy away from Christian values in a work to still have empowering messages and appeal to a secular audience. It brought the story to life and had a beautiful story to tell - whether or not you’re Christian, you’re gonna love the power of forgiveness for Edmund, the childhood faith of Lucy, the sacrifices of Aslan for these kids and this world, etc. And while I don’t believe the characters were portrayed the same as the book (I don’t think that’s possible, and either way the extra scenes/narratives with Peter and Edmund existed, of course), but that only shows the other point - the mentality should be making the story, not adapting it. With the characters, they added, not subtracted, and this was the same for the plot. I love 2005 Narnia, it is such a well-made adaption - I don’t remember whether I read or saw LWW first as a kid, and that proves a great thing - it really didn’t matter which came first. Sorry, I’ll edit that year error :)
Meh. It's good, but something about its tone never resonated with me. Even as a little kid, i liked lord of the rings (with the scary scenes skipped) more than narnia.
Wow, y’all, I like Narnia more, if only because (while I love LOTR) I’ve always had an adoration for Narnia. The world just felt more lively, and as a kid I loved thinking up Golden Age stories about the Pevensies, making it a main reason why I got into books in general. I never read the LOTR books cause they were always really dense for me. Narnia isn’t as grand a story, I’ll give you that, but Narnia felt more magical and creative. I feel outnumbered, fam!
Narnia is a children's book based on religious fables that's meant to be thinly veiled Christian indoctrination. Disgusting garbage that you should keep as far away from your children as possible.
i've always thought so too. i never really cared much from a christian standpoint - specially cause i didnt understand it as a kid -, but reading the books and watching the movies, i was not disappointed with how great the movie told everything it needed in the screentime and was loyal to the book. only one thing: i think the book works better with the emotional parts, and since the movies start with LWW, people who didnt read the original story will not know all about diggory, polly and the wardrobe story (except for the casual hints on LWW), but this part is only my personal perspective, of course. all in all they did a great job and i do agree that you can enjoy wether you're religious or not.
They set themselves up even worse than you know. They weren't just adapting one book, this season attempts to adapt two books, both short story collections, The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny. I feel like one book wouldn't have been that hard to cut down into 8 episodes, but now, instead of 6 stories into 8, it's 12 stories into 8. That means that some stories are entirely left out. Almost all the stories in The Witcher lead into each other, or are at least connected. Story beats lead into each other in a very natural and enjoyable way. Having to cut one of them out is really going to hurt the narrative of the rest, let alone the 5 or so they ended up cutting. I still like the show, and think it's a good introduction to The Witcher, but I think the books are a much superior way to enjoy the story and characters.
The issue that these books don't work outside of the narrative framing of Geralt re-telling stories of his travels. They would have been better of ignoring the short stories as fodder for a season and instead picked one or two and filled in the blanks. The rest could be used for filler later on as Geralt interacted with people who had heard Jaskier's tall tales of his exploits.
You cant understand the series without having read the books. If you have read the books, you cant like the show, because the books are infinitly better.
As someone who has read the books, I agree with you. I think it's enjoyable for people who haven't read the books but I was just too busy getting mad at the show for doing so many dumb things. I had to shut that part of my brain off in order to start enjoying it
They wouldn't want it to be all about a masculine white male with white hair doing manly things like killing monsters and shit. Oh no no no no, that simply won't do. To be politically correct they had to include a woman and a girl to give things a "feminine" touch.
What's really wild is that, though it's been a hot minute since I watched the show, I remember thinking that a lot of its runtime felt wasted and directionless until the last episode or so, like what was left in the show was the bits that should have been cut. Most of these points seem like they could have easily been made the focus in a more condensed way with actual clever writing, where a whole conflict can at least be addressed if not fully explored by a few well-placed lines and good visual storytelling. But doing that is hard, so this is what resulted.
The scenes involving Geralt in this series were hands-down my favorite. Cavill completely showed how much he loves the Witcher universe, and it was so great to see someone as faithful as him putting on the performance that he did. Also loved the casting of Jaskier, and Joey Batey and Cavill definitely captured some good moments together. Just my opinion, but Lauren Hissrich seems very devoted as well and I have a feeling season 2 is going to vastly improve on some of the criticisms the show received.
Bernardo Carneiro I didn’t think they were all bad and idk if I’d go as far as to say it’s the ONLY good thing about the show but I admit that there was definitely a lot of content that could have been cut. Basically the entire Ciri storyline was a snooze fest for me and I would’ve loved more of the Witcher Contract type episodes like the Striga one. Overall though I’m still excited for season 2 because I know the show runners have been very vocal about the fact that they are listening to criticisms and want to make sure the fans are happy and they do the Witcher universe justice. I believe they already said they’re changing the Nilfgaardian army, but don’t quote me on that. I’m still hoping we see A LOT more Geralt next season and considering the storylines have finally converged I’m guessing we will. Also hyped to see how they portray Vesemir, Eskel, Lambert, etc.
In my opinion, if Cavill loved it so much he should have stood up for the source material and not bowed down to the studios while they ruined it. It's shit, and it will remain so because nobody else will touch it.
@@matthiasthulman4058 He's an actor though, not a director. It's unfair to expect of actors to actively participate in writing the script especially when they don't always see all of it (and even if they do, they are bound by contract).
@@jacobshaftoe8326 I've only read the first book, lost interest after that. It genuinely wasn't that much better than the show, just different. I will concede that the series made a huge mistake adding the whole soap opera arc at the end of season 1.
I REALLY hated the 3 stories going on at the same time. I couldn't keep up, and it got irritating because I would be getting invested in one story and then got pulled out of it for another
That and the timeline jumps. It took me way too long to realize the story was jumping back and forward with time, and it took a lot of enjoyment out of the show for me. 3032021 / 10:22p
That are wasting their time with Yennefer, she was never a main character. Her backstory takes no more than 2 or 3 pages in all books compined. And when she is a part of some story there is always Geralt, Ciri or other sourceress with her
They should have at least cut out Ciri, she isn't in the Last Wish books at all and they would have had so much more time to flesh out the stories in the show without having to follow her shit.
@@savaralyn0951 Completely agree. I understand they thought they had to introduce Ciri right away since she later becomes such an important character, but it really would've worked better if they made the first season about Geralt (and Yennefer) and only hint at Ciri's existence. Make us aware of the fact that Destiny is a real force in this universe, that something like a Law of surprise exists, and that Geralt has a child bound to him and is avoiding his responsibility. Use the time to really build up his character, his relationship with Yennefer and Jaskier (and add Nenneke!) and the way he struggles to find his purpose in a world that hates him for who he is. Than the last episode would be him finding out that Cintra is under siege and heading there to finally get and protect Ciri. End it on a cliffhanger of him arriving only to find the city destroyed and Ciri gone, but knowing she's alive. Do a whole emotional scene where he meets badly injured and dying queen Calanthe as she pleads for him to go and save her. Roll credits. And then make the second season about her and her escape, and her and Geralt finding each other.
1:35 I kinda disagree, while I would say it's trickier to perform on the big screen, you can definitely do "internal monologues" by just having the main character voice-over. Dexter is an excellent example of this. That aside, this is an amazing eye opening video. Thank you for making this man, never knew how much I missed out on by not reading the books and just watching the TV show.
Yes. It's also awful lack of internal dialogue cause I've had some shows where the characters are just silent and I'm supposed to guess what the characters think. I end up not catching internal conflicts and changes. Internal dialogue to know what your characters are thinking, their thougt process. But if people abuse it just to info dump then at that point have a mysterious narrator above speak on their behalf.
The time element of the show confused me massively, and I know the whole last wish story by heart. Also, the depiction of Foltest annoyed me so much, hes one of the most cunning kings yet they depict him as a slob
That explanation of the happenings and Geralt's decisions just put soooo much weight to the title of the butcher of blaviken that everyone was yelling in the games.
Once you know the timeline, going back and rewatching it was really enjoyable, but there definitely felt like some parts of the story could have been slimmed down (a lot of the Ciri stuff), and some parts that need way more bulking. I think a lot of people, even non-readers or players like myself, would have been willing to sit through episodes that were double the length to accommodate that additional content. Whats really impressed on me here is how much they should have used the short story episodes as character building blocks to help show the shaping of Geralts world view and characterisation, especially towards how he will behave as a parent having to teach those views to a child. It feels so often like they just hint at that idea or him constructing a moral code from these moments, but instead of building that characterisation, he just comes across as a constant nihilist. I found my other problem was that the show seemed to being trying to impress the importance of certain character relationships to the audience, but without providing the plot to make the weight of those relationships seem realistic. For example, Geralt spends the entire first season remembering Renfri, but in the context of the show she just comes across as being a weird one-night stand that he ends up killing, so as a viewer it came across odd that he kept thinking of her. Or in the final episode we see that Triss and Yen are friends, but with no previous scenes to show that, I found it hard to care about what was happening to Triss in the battle of Sodden. Most egregiously, even though by the timeline Jaskier and Geralt traveled together for decades, I felt their character dynamic never changed from that first initial meeting, leaving it feeling like all the episodes with Jaskier happened over a very short period of time. By comparison his dynamic with Yennefer changed a lot from the Last Wish episode to the Golden Dragon episode, making it clear a fair amount of time had passed, while he had no change with Jaskier. I found those two differing paces of character dynamics really conflicted. I think just overall, it came across like they wrote it with the expectation that most viewers would have already read the book or played one of the games, and so didn't do the leg work to write well crafted episodes. Still, I really enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to season 2
They could have just left the Ciri and Yen stuff for the second season... Spot on critique though... EDIT: Just re-listened to "The Lesser Evil" short story and indeed it seems the show misses completely the whole point of the story. Another point about the story that this essay didn't touch on is that in the short story Renfri is Snowhite. There's this thing in the lore of the witcher where popular folk stories exist in that universe and the folk stories that we know in real life are just sugar-coated stories about what 'really' happened. Renfri's stepmother, the queen, sent her to the woods with a huntsman with the order to kill her. Only Renfri seduced this huntsman and killed him before he could do the same to her. She lived with 7 gnomes and they were in a criminal gang. Later Stregabor and her stepmother tried to poison her with an apple.
I still think Yennefer's backstory should have been left for after we meet her. There's literally no reason for us to care for her before Geralt meets her. It's great that it's included and I love both young Yen and Istredd, but it could be in later seasons, explaining her character in retrospective rather that building on it straight up
There is no lesser evil Tessian. Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition's blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.
@@alexsm3882 Only Evil and Greater Evil exist and beyond them, in the shadows, lurks True Evil. True Evil, Alex, is something you can barely imagine, even if you believe nothing can still surprise you. And sometimes True Evil seizes you by the throat and demands that you choose between it and another, slightly lesser, Evil.
@@alexsm3882 Greater evil - a candidate who will destroy a country in 2-5 years, lesser evil - a candidate who will destroy it in more than 10 or not at all.. Would you not prefer the second candidate to get elected?
I'm quite eager to hear your thoughts on the second season. Despite considerable production quality improvement, after watchin S2, I would stop calling it an adaptation. More like "loosely based on".
Exactly. Immediately upon watching the first episode knew “holy shit… they really fucked this one up”. They’ve ruined the story by just making up new shit. They’ve made the Game of Thrones mistake DESPITE HAVING JUST BEGUN THE FUCKING SOURCE MATERIAL!
I wouldn't even call it that. Season 2 is so far off the mark, it might as well be a comic book-style alternate universe with no canonical connection to the source material other than character names. Watching that show, I couldn't think of a *single* scene that did not deviate from the events of the book. Usually in absurdly major ways.
I think "loosely based upon" is fine. The whole witcher expanded universe outside if book canon is "loosely based upon." The show isn't nearly as bad as everyone raves on it for being. It's an ok show with an ok show budget
As a lover of the Witcher, while I feel the show fails as an adaption of the source material, it's charming enough to allow me to appreciate it for what it is. Also Cavill I feel embodies Geralt very well. In that respect I enjoy it
I really Loved this show. Yes, as an adaptation it fails. Its rough and rushed. But It has this tone to it. Everyone is very in it despite the at times ridiculous stuff. It feels like watching the 90`s and early 2000´s shows. Somewhat cheap and campy but a absolutely enjoyable watch. I think people get to hung up on the source material because it is JUST. THAT. GOOD. (Books and game adaptation)
@@theexchipmunk I know what you trying to say, that we shouldn't look at it as adaptation, but as it's own thing 🤔 but I just can't do that 😆 because I still can't stop think of it's potential.. And it's not like they didn't had the budget to recreate some stuff like in game of thrones. Just go to any slavic country like Slovakia Poland or Czech Republic and you will find there everything you need 😆 Do you people love witcher so much that it make you to defend even it's crappy version? 😆
@@kristiankopera You do know that I just put another point of view out? I am not defending it. I already stated that it has a lot of flaws. Obviously there could have been so much more. But if viewed from a different angle it can be very entertaining.
@@theexchipmunk I understand that, lot of people like it. So there must be something about I guess. For me it is terrible just because I was a huge fan of books and games since I was a kid, iam slavic and witcher with it's setting kind of brought me to our old traditions and pagan mythology.. Soo you have to understand iam upset that they didn't bring what i expected 😁 on the other hand, when I saw for instance the last Airbender (the movie) I enjoyed it and had no problem with it (even tho I know lot of people hate it) but I never seen original anime and never was into anime so I just saw it from different angle 😁 I hope you understand what iam talking about..
I haven't read the books, but honestly I didn't have any problems following along with the story. After hearing you explain the background of episode 1 with the info from the books, I agree that the book made for a better story. But I thought Geralts dream before the marketplace and Stregobors actions after Renfris job did a sufficient job to convey the message. I still understood why he went, and that choosing any evil is still evil and bad. So I understand your point and I agree to some extent, but as tv makes for a whole different medium I thought they did a good job of it anyway.
He's blatantly left out exposition the show gives in order to make a point as well. I do think that the book tells a better story but the disingenuous nature of this video honestly just rubs me the wrong way
I totally agree. Surely it might be confusing to someone but I personally had no problem understanding the story, and I think it was even better to not tell the audience everything word for word. That kind of storytelling rarely works in a tv show as it usually just makes you feel underestimated as a viewer, as if you needed an explanation for every scene. I find it much more entertaining to be confused for a moment and then realizing the facts myself. To each their own and so on, but I think the show did a great job in leaving certain things for the viewer to figure out.
@@macgarymusic The point isn't understanding what is happening. What is happening is self evident., The thing is understading all the reasoning for the characters to act and react the way they're doing towards what is happening, which the show does a horrible job at conveying.
I first thought he went to the market because he fucked her the night before. I was so annoyed by their campfire session, because it seemed like she wanted to manipulate Geralt to help her and then I was confused why he would stop her.
@@victorpresti but this is a common thing in not only books but tv as well. You don't/won't always know peoples motivation when it's happening. Especially with a medium like tv or books that span long periods of time. But you get the gist of what is going on. And as you learn more about the world and the characters you understand things more. I only think this would be a fair criticism if the show A) never expands on this or B) it is nearly impossible to understand the show at it's current state without said background/motivations ect. But the show didn't fall into the category
Ciri's storyline: *Ciri running in the woods somehow stumbles upon someone.* Random character: "Hey, wanna come with me?" Ciri: "Sure." Ciri: *Runs away* Repeat this 7 times and you got Ciri's storyline. But honestly the show was super entertaining. I can't believe the next season is coming out in over a year.
I understand that they wanted to flesh out Ciri before she meets Geralt. But they could have done it when she was still in Cintra. We actually learn quite a lot about her in the books - e.g. that she was adventurous and kept running away and play with common folk in the streets (and she was great in blending in on the streets, stealing etc.). She was strong willed. She met Geralt or the first time in Brokilon when she was about 10, after she escaped a meeting with a prince Calathe wanted to arrange her to marry (Ciri decides then to leave the dryads and Geralt brings her back to Cintra). We learn that she was sporty - running, riding a horse, climbing walls, and skating (she defeated boys in skate jumping in Skellige - this is important for future plot, and all they did was have Ciri SAY it in a lame exposition when interrogating doppler-Mousesack about Skellige). Have her interact more with Calanthe, with Mousesack, with her peasant friends, with the court - and contrive her escape after Cintra's fall to 2-3 episodes at the maximum.
If you read the books Sword of Destiny and The Last Wish, the show is total ass because in no way at did they improve upon the stories in the adaptations just made all of it worse. Changed characters and plots completely, it is an embarrassment to call this an adaptation. “But adaptations can’t be perfeCt” Watch them give Vilgefortz role to Stregobor or some random ass character and have Cahir killed off or some stupid shit lol that’s how bad it is
18:12 I don't know man, they still had time to make dick jokes, show Jaskier singing and being humiliated, have Calanthe whine about how the patriarchy forces her to marry off her daughter while she herself still behaves in a way you wouldn't expect a woman whose hands are tied by the patriarchy to behave, and so on. Or the fact that they showed the sacking of Cintra not once but twice, and probably patted themselves on the back with how cleverly they have handled the nonlinear timeline. The show's problem isn't just that they didn't have enough runtime, it's also what they chose to do with the time they had. It's also worth noting that they wouldn't have the time issue or the timeline issue altogether if they hadn't dedicated 2/3 of the show to completely made up stories that either don't appear in the books or are conveyed through subtle hints in the source. This decision results in the complete waste that is Ciri's story line. At least Yennefer's actually serves a purpose for the most part, the exception being the bit with the assassin which is a complete waste of budget for a payoff that could have easily been handled with her other adventures and didn't need its own episode. The time that is freed up then could have been used to properly handle "A Question of Price". Since the amount of cuts they made to the original material renders most of the adaptations pointless, they should have either a) lessened the number of short stories they adapted or b) merged a couple of short stories together to make a cohesive whole. For instance, the only purpose of adapting "The Edge of the World" appears to be introducing Geralt to Jaskier, seeing as they totally failed at the scoia'tael bit. They could have achieved the same thing by replacing the (made up) Triss bits from "Betrayer Moon" with Jaskier's intro in "Four Marks". That would have easily freed up an extra hour for them to dedicate to the other story threads. The biggest crime to me, however, is how they have handled Nilfgaard and the Nilfgaardian characters. I can't for the life of me comprehend why they have decided to turn them into full-on evil, brain-washed, murder-happy suicide-bombers. It's not in any way, shape or form a result of runtime issues, or a result of something unfixable in the narrative/format. That's just how they have decided to present the story. It's a special crime to amazing characters like Cahir and Fringilla, and is probably going to fuck up Emhyr down the line too. In the same vein, they have also fucked up Geralt's and Jaskier's relationship by turning Geralt into an abusive asshole who isn't beyond getting physically violent toward his supposed best friend. Why did they think that's ok? Is that supposed to be funny somehow? Is it supposed to make Geralt "morally grey"? Is it for the sake of drama? Why??? Even putting aside the books and looking at the show as its own thing, one has to ask why Jaskier would continue his friendship with someone like that, or why Geralt would keep someone around that he apparently feels nothing for other than continuous disdain and anger. I don't have too much faith that the seasons moving forward would get better. If the issue was just time, the show probably would be safe since the reception of the first season almost guarantees that they will get more episodes per season. Unfortunately, almost all of the issues stem from the writing choices, and if GoT has shown us anything, it doesn't matter how good the actors are or how well-produced the show is. If the writing fails, everything else does. I hope I'm proven wrong and they get better, since I love the Witcher-verse very much. Oh, and, I disagree with your assessment of what Sapkowski was trying to accomplish with The Lesser Evil. The moral of the story wasn't that "you should walk away," that's how he ended up getting those people killed. It was that "not choosing" is an illusion and it ends up helping the objectively more evil side (Stregebor). If Renfri was truly evil, she wouldn't have tried to negotiate with Stregebor and would've gone through with her murdering innocents plan. Hell, the only reason that she entertained that plan was because Geralt refused to do the right thing. Geralt basically missed the only window of opportunity for delivering justice by deciding to be holier than thou, and then messed up when he decided to finally do something because he assumed Renfri was as evil as Stregebor ("evil is evil").
I read the whole thing i actually agree with you on the part of Nilfgaard shown as Orc army from Lord of the Rings. Also, Ciri's plot was the most boring and unnecessary in my opinion. The first season should have been following only Geralt not even Yennifer.
You perfectly summed it up. It didnt help that they basically shat all over the description of the characters in the books either. Some characters look different, act different _and_ have a different role in the show aswell. Really makes you wonder why they even bothered to give them those names instead of making some new characters altogether.
Yes they had a really limited time to introduce the characters and stories. But why did they waste that time making up their own dumb shit instead of staying true to the source material as much as possible? No, it could have been much better even though they had limited time.
It would be better for this season, but skipping backstory completely would have to be reflected in future seasons, around time when that backstory is necessary for context. Skipping all out-of-scope content would make it a better season, but I don't know if it'd be better for series as a whole. For now - we can only wait and see if it'll pay off in the future.
I’ve never read the books but I enjoyed the series quite a lot and thought that I understood everything. But wow, yeah, now that you explained how the whole Renfri storyline went in the book I actually understand why people are so disappointed with the series
No, the show just showed that she was set on killing him, and while he did not want to, he'd rather kill than be killed. There are several moments when he could kill her but chooses not to, until she finally makes it clear that she would never let go.
@@g.strobl4458 he butchered her team completely without reason as it turns out. He wanted to be a knight in shining armor, but turned out to be butcher. Book is muuuuuch better with that story
@@szafraniec8164 In the show, she gives him an ultimatum to join her in killing the sorcerer, or be against her. That's why he kills her men. Because they were very clearly going to kill him if he didn't choose to side with her. That's hardly "completely without reason"
@@perryuppal that is why it is poor writing if that is the story there is no lesser evil - the title of this adventure for gods sake. in show renfri is just evil, there is no choice at all and his actions are completely justified. that is why AS is the master of this world, he added so many layers, depth of characters and story we feel it in other books as well
@@szafraniec8164 they had 8 episodes and Renfri is a very unimportant part to the story they're trying to build. The only reason they even included her was to show that even when Geralt defends himself and sticks to his morals, he will always be the monster in everyone's eyes. It's not bad writing because they didn't do things exactly like the books
Wow. I have never read/watched/played any Witcher content, but this is seriously making me interested in the books. I didn't know The Witcher was so much about exploring morality
It's all about morality when you break down the story. Pretty much every character is grey. In fact I can't actually think of any character that isn't grey.
I played through the games and STILL didn't understand what was going on, so I started reading the series. The show explains things terribly, if at all.
I definitely think you're right. When I was watching this with my husband I had read the last wish and he had not and I had to keep pausing the show to explain the characters motivations behind their choices. They definitely created a very confusing show.
That's what annoys me so much - Not that they cut content because they hadn't enough time which would completly fine. But because they cut content so this Gürl of Showrunner could twist the Stories to something more "American Political Correct"-like-thing.
@@DaroriDerEinzige Especially that Sapkowski's novels are quite politically correct! They are pro-feminist and anti-racist! The thing is the books don't try to shove it down your throat by force...
@@Evija3000 Yeah, that angered me too! The queen talking about how women are so oppressed by men and can't do what they want to do WHILE being the most powerful person in the room and doing literaly all she wants, even if it's totally inaproppriate. Also historicaly, the queens couldn't choose who to marry not because female oppression, but because of politics and forming alliances. The kings had the same duty, so the message is also completely wrong.
I was waiting for this TV series with anticipation, but stopped watching after 3 episodes. The creators don't get the world. Geralt talks to kings like he's suicidal. The books create him as a badass warrior, but not invincible space marine. He can be killed(if he pisses off the wrong people, for example A FRIGGIN KING), he can starve to death (if he will not get contracts or people will choose to not pay him), he's vulnerable to many things that regular humans are. The whole convoluted political aspect of this world is out the window also. I'm not bothered by black elves or superman-witcher. I think the visual aspect is pretty spot on (ok, I dislike the casting choice for Yennefer, but I could live with that if the story would hold), but it all felt like an insult to one of the greatest written stories I've ever read.
@@madel005 actually I personally would say the opposite, the writing gets worse as the show drags on and they mostly kept to the source material in the first few episodes as opposed to taking bigger liberties with adding and changing things later on in the season.
@@PassiveDreamer They fucked the magic system. If you read the books, at some point, Yen trains Ciri to use magic. She tells her how it works. Book: Pull from a source then use. Use any spells, don't pull from fire. Show: Use but lose your arms. Don't use fire spells, or you'll disintegrate.
@@Dragon-dk3jw no he was not. At some point in the books he looses it and goes against all odds. But it has been stated many times, that he perfectly well knows his place in the social relations of this world.
Hey Guys,
I hope you guys enjoyed today's video. As per usual, it took me far longer than it really should have to make this because procrastination is a constant enemy. But if you liked the video and want to help me in making more, then please do support me on Patreon.
When you help me out there, it seriously does make a difference, and it directly supports me in creating more of these videos. Also, I have a bunch of rewards there like a discord server where you can talk to me and other subscribers and get early access to upcoming videos. There's a link in the description if that sounds good to you :D
Anyway, thanks for watching, and I look forward to seeing why I'm wrong down below,
- Henry
Long have I waited
Sean Smith lol
No I think you are completely right about everything.
@Zombobo Smith I'm fairly sure they actually answer that in-world. From my understanding, Geralt took the standard trails very well, so he was singled out for experimentation and they tried many new trials on him.
They could’ve done a chokehold & destroyed the market. They could’ve starved the town and allowed the citizens to leave, but not return & choke him out.
They had problems with adaptation in Season 1 so they decided to adapt nothing in Season 2.
Sigma grindset writers
Precisely
This aged well 💯💯💯
modern writing classes gotta be like:
"first rule of adaption, burn the source material, BURN IT ALL"
Seriously im kinda amazed it took 2 more seasons for people to stop watching this shit show after i barely got through season 1 i was done so much dogshit like not even 1 good episode in its entirety.
I thought the title said "how to fail at adoption" and I was like "that's right, GERALT"
keksien En oo syöny keksiä ja NÄIN
@@qozat7367 wait what ? i thought her father was good?
@@qozat7367 he was but had a change of heart and only wanted her to take the throne
😂
lmaooooo 🤣
Another point about the "helmet removal" scene: in the books, Duny keeps his helmet on until the clock strikes 12. As he removes it, his hedgehog face is revealed and everyone gasps in shock. You see, Calanthe *knew* that Duny would show up, so she instructed the bells to be rung an hour early to expose him as the "monster" he is.
Exactly, and the very reason she called for Geralt to be there in the first place, which is why she’s so pissed when Geralt outright refuses to kill Duny instead of leaping up and offing him. She misunderstands Geralts modus operandi, And Geralt is semi on to her plan too at this point in the book.
Warning Spoiler comment.
Imagine my surprise when the emperor of Nilfgard is Duny!
@@KeytarArgonian yer I read the book not long ago and at first I thought it was going to be a different story sense they gave him a monster contact just to get him there
Another one major change is that in the book Geralt knows that Pavetta is pregnant and he chooses the law of surprise, bcs he knew that the child will have more chance to survive the mutation. In the show they made a joke from it.
@@KeytarArgonian Admittedly, I didn't actually pick up on a lot of the structural problems discussed in the video because I had read the books and thus I did understand what was going on. But one thing I definitely DID notice is that Geralt is at the party for a completely different reason.
In the show, Jaskier/Dandelion brings him along as a sort of bodyguard. In the short story, though, he's there at Calanthe's request, which makes a lot more sense, because as you mention, she knows Duny is going to show up. In the show she seems to know who and what Duny is, same as in the short story, but ... doesn't have any plan for him showing up? She just sort of notices Geralt at the party and is like "Ah, perfect, a witcher has fallen into my lap. HE can kill the monster that will show up demanding my daughter's hand. What a stroke of luck!" It does a real disservice to her character.
The defense of the writers in this video did not age well. It turns out they actively dislike the source material, really hard to adapt something when you actively hate it.
Oh no, they deeply adore Sapkowski, they told us so
@@hanaboskova Yes, and he loves them back. So much that he wanted to lawsuit CP when he discovered they sold his IP to Netflix.
@@elevenm.a.1125 I think you mean when he sued CDPR for more money because he sold the IP cheap by the time of witcher 1 and didn't expect witcher 3 to be so popular and wanted more money
@@skdeathxlife No, I mean exactly what I said.
He did it after discovering that CDPR sold Witcher rights to Netflix. That''s because Polish law does not accept "I don't like that Netflix will butcher my magnum opus", but it *does* accept "the company bought my IP too cheap and is ripping me off, I deserve compensation".
Sapkowski rolled with whatever laws his lawyers could find, as long as it meant he'd get some sort of 'damages' for the breach of trust. He was very explicit about movie adaptations of his works - which, after a disastrous Polish movie, was "over my dead body". CDPR knew he'd veto the whole thing if they asked him, which is why they did it over his head. The whole 'he just wanted more money' thing is just online backlash from people who don't understand the situation.
@@elevenm.a.1125 Not that I don't believe you but gonna need a source on that (edit I could not find any sources it's as I remember it being about royalties)
Dont forget, they made Vilgefortz who arguably the strongest sorcerer who ever lived fight so poorly. In the book hes able to take on Geralt, Yennefer and won he also killed a HIGHER vampire. While in the netflix adaptation he cant even beat some dude in a weird ass armor.
The guy that beat vilgefortz in the Show was Cahir and in the books Cahir is defeated by Ciri, so he would never stand a Chance against Vilgefortz.
To be fair the show is still in the time before the main story of the books Even starts, so he has plenty of time to level up. I don‘t think this is as much of a hurdle as some of the other things, since he might have just gotten stronger over time.
Oh did the show end already?
...beat some dude with a sword. WITH A FUCKING SWORD, CARL! Imagine this: he used his powerful magic not to kill a man (who he met only in the end of the story btw), but to conjure a strip of iron. Pathetic
In the show Vilgefortz lost on purpose to favor Nilfgaard in Sodden Hill, as he's a nilfgaardian ally, it makes sense.
Jeez I had no idea how complex the Renfri situation is in the books, it seemed so vague in the show
Just read it lol
Every story in The Last Wish is loosely based in classic fairy tales. Renfri was Snow White with her seven mercenaries (dwarves.)
@Draydin Bardon No, that's a YOU problem. I understood just fine. He was telling the OP to read the books.
@@MrSobe00 Sapkowski made a great original story and added a fairy tale element in the backstory of one character. Lesser Evil is not based on a fairytale, even loosely. plz stop repeating that, it's just incorrect and hurtful to the author.
To be fair I find it just as weak in the books. Well book. It wasn’t really explained just as much as the book.
They didn’t HAVE to take out 50 percent in my opinion. Having 3 protagonists was a mistake and they should have focused on geralt
Completely agree. Especially because yennifers backstory was nowhere near as prominent and detailed in the books, definitely not the first one. Especially because I think its a weakness of the book series that they include more and more different characters while Gerald looks for ciry without accomplishing anything for two whole books. For me, it really lacked story progress after a while...
@@LenaLovesgoodStories the first two books are great. They're just geralt being a witcher doing witcher things and it's awesome.
@@legendarylitening I think other ones are just as good, I'm on book 6 and having both Geralt and Ciri as protagonists works really well. Ciri moments are even more interesting at this point.
But geralt is a straight white cis male. We cant have that now can we
@@LenaLovesgoodStories agreed, kinda hated how it felt like time was being wasted searching for this chick
Ciri and Yennefer are introduced perfectly well in the books without Sapkowski having to have 3 simultaneous main characters. If they just adapted the stories as written, it would have been gold. It almost seems Hissrich thought she could write it better but a lot of the series' plot is almost unrecognizable from the books (especially looking at you, episode 3), and most of it ends up being nonsensical. The writers made a complete mockup of it all.
This! Chick fancied herself a better writer but only proved how incompetent she is. Henry carried this shitshow that would otherwise only be slightly better rated than Batwoman.
The worst part of the series is the script imo. If it was better written the story could have been pretty good.
That's what a lot writers adapting fantasy books seem to be doing nowadays, it was like that with The Wheel of Time as well, they have a hatred for the story and the belief that they could improve upon it in everyway
@@destinpatterson1644 Yep. She even admitted that she didn't like Eskels character so turned him into a dick that gets turned into a Leshen in the show. Pathetic
I concur.
15:00 the last episode is called 'Something More', but that message is also completely lost. In the books, Geralt finds Ciri. Ciri asks. "Am I your destiny, Geralt?" To which he replies. "No. You are something more." In the show the whole conversation becomes. "wHo iS yEneFer???"
+1
Also, that reunion centers around the line, "People linked by destiny will always find one another," when the point of that encounter was that destiny and fate aren't strong enough on their own for such a connection.
@@rodynzhaku4711 Exactly.
@@rodynzhaku4711 And to me that killed the show because the characters are moved by destiny not their choices so why bother watching the rest. It's all destiny and destiny alone. The people in it don't matter anymore.
Exactly. That moment is much better in the book
The entire time I was watching the show, I was thinking "Man, there is no way anybody who didn't read the books (or doesn't already know the stories from different source) has any idea what the hell is happening right now." I know the books quite well and even to me it took a while until I went "Oooh, this is taking place fifteen years before the previous episode! Maybe it would have been a good idea to indicate that somehow."
I was so hopeful for this series, as I can share my passion with my friends who have heard of the franchise but never played the games or read the books. I watched it together with a friend and he didn't have any reaction to any of the scenes, I was fucking confused too, and I've read some of the books and read wiki lore.
The fact that they didn't even say in like title cards or something, that the time periods were different annoyed me. It was only after the Yennefer scene where she's escorting the Princess that I realised it wasn't all set at the same time, so I checked online only to see how far out each story was timewise.
Bruh to me after watching the whole series i was able to piece together easily when everything was happening, it was kinda fun too. Sure it was weird at first, but after seeing Yennefer interacting with Geralt i was like, "oh so we were seeing Yennefer and Geralt's past and Ciri is in the present and we are working up to that got it".
I should be a fairly good yardstick on this: I had not read the books or played the games, but I am pretty well versed in fantasy tropes. My verdict is, sadly, that there were several times where I felt a bit lost. The show had been hyped so much and while I felt some parts of it were really great, others looked either really cheap (like the dragon), or just... off - probably for the reasons outlined in this video. I'm still hopeful for season 2 though.
You have to really be paying attention to realize what is going on with the timeline until episode 5.
Give him a break guys, it took 7 episodes for him to level up so that he can continue with the main story.
Underrated comment
Too relatable.
Having played the game, this is too real lol.
Exactly
sometimes you just gotta grind pointless sidequests, you know?
"The lesser evil" also makes every heroic action of Geralt even more heroic. He doesn't want to choose the lesser evil because in this chapter he has been taught not to. But sometimes he has no choice. Sometimes he needs to leave his neutral role and be a hero for example in the battle of the bridge (You know what I mean if you read the books).
At least thats what it's supposed to be like. Netflix kinda failed to show us such things. They somehow manage to show us most of the story but leave every deeper and secretly important part of the story completly out.
In that chapter Geralt says multiple times that if he is presented with evil and lesser evil choices, he'd rather not choose at all. So while you read you think: Is there a lesser evil? What would I choose?. Or you disagree, like me, thinking that if you can minimize damage it's worth choosing the "lesser evil". And towards the end, Geralt links the dots and understands Renfri's plan and starts running towards the market. So the village elder asks him what is he doing and Geralt says something like: "I have to choose the lesser evil".
That chapter, like most of the saga, was a great experience, that makes you think and evaluate these concepts deeply.
To be fair winning the battle of the bridge was his only chance for survival considering the Milva situatuion.But still Geral and Cahir were heroes.
Yeah, I agree with you, you should have mentioned also the Hedgehog Knight's response.
"You lie, queen. I did not force your husband into a promise when he was in trouble. I saved him and got him to safety, and only then, he, on his own volition, insisted that I choose the reward."
Also, Queen Calanthe is revealed in the book to have adjusted the palace clock, so that Midnight strikes at 11:50 PM, before Hedgehog can turn into normal person face (He can only be normal from Midnight to Morning). So he takes off the helmet, true to his word and under peer pressure, but is humiliated because the face is still hedgehog.
I really liked that part. It showed calanthe to be cleverer and more cunning than expected
I found that episode to so be so cringe, just complete overacting on almost everyone’s part.
And they turned an intelligent, clever woman into a battle queen that kicks ass, because whamen.
@@THEPELADOMASTER LOL is there anything wrong with that or are you just mindless bitching.
@@Gadget-Walkmen did you literally just ask if there's anything wrong with turning good writing into bad writing? Wow
*reads title of the video*
"Hmm"
-Geralt
More likely response
"Fuck"
"...Fuck" -Geralt
"Fuck" -Geralt
dude that is word for word what thought when I saw the notification on my phone 😂
😂😂 priceless! That's SO Geralt!
I feel like The Closer Look is getting more and more Savage with the titles as time passes
Yep, I'm afraid to see what my next one will be each time.
Sensationalism attracts more people
Clickbait tactics, the only way to survive on UA-cam is to make people upset or to be Markiplier
Yeah cause hes desperate for clicks
Everybody gets tired of the bs after a while
Why not do the short stories first? Set up Geralt as a tough, battle hardened mercenary while also developing the world while hinting at the other characters and future plots? They aren't extremely long and detailed books, and if something is given in too much detail or explanation, it seems as though it can be fixed by the visual media.
If they wanted to give Yennefer more time, they could show her career as a mage on royal courts and use it to explain politics.
@@adapienkowska2605 agreed
@@adapienkowska2605 honestly think they could have done better if they did more animations personally. I find that it had far more potential
@@rexnas8150 r rated animation doesnt sell as unfortunately at least thats what producers think
@@sebastianzuzi311 big sad😖
I have never read the books and what I got from the first episode was that geralt asked renfri to leave so he wouldn't have to choose between killing her or stregobor. But she decides to stay and kill him anyway so geralt killed her men and her. The show didn't pass the idea that she had a plan to kill the entire town whatsoever. When she said she woud kill everyone it sounded like "I will kill everyone in my way", not that it was her plan the whole time. For someone who didn't read the books it's like a completely different story
Unfortunately that's problem with most of the first season. I've read books several times and couldn't believe how they butchered some of the most impactful stories. Or even cut them completely (like meeting between Geralt and Ciri in Brokilon - very important and completely removed).
That episode was butchered to shit lol in the books it almost felt like Geralt and this woman had a connection in the show she kept stalking him in the woods and saying random buzz words from the book that didnt quite fit. That episode got it the worst the others weren't as bad and were fairly accurate as they could be in shorter run time but I can barley watch that one.
@@lf9177 Bro that was the best story and is my favorite story from any book every Geralt and ciris first meeting is amazing like he wrote them like actual people playing off eachother very well plus ciri is hilarious. Its dumb how they did the ending too where they meet again but in the show thats the first time in the book you think she is dead and Geralt is like about to cry and sees her and runs to her in front of Dandelion who knows Geralt as not this type of guy and she says "I am your destiny Geralt dont leave me anymore" and he says "I wont ciri I wont" and it ends. I never cry but that scene gets me everytime cause its set up so well...man the show really fucked that up.
@@lf9177 Oh god that was one of the worst. I mean the driads had that isolationist attitude and complete hostility. It did a lot of world building in the conflict between the elves and the humans while showing the meaning of destiny along with connecting us and Geralt with Ciri in a meaningful way. I mean even the scene where Geralt is wounded protecting the merchant and is hurt in the cart was horrible. I mean in the book we learn that a sorcerous was being sent for before Geralt's mother shows up and the way its potrayed in the movies makes it seem like some kind of fever dream with Geralt hallucinating. I cannot believe how badly they butchered the series to the point where the meaning of the stories almost seemed to have the opposite meaning that it did in the books.
This same thing happens with Terry Pratchett adaptations. The actual adventures are normally ridiculous but they're normally metaphorical or witty or explorations of humanity. The TV shows are literally just the events.
Season 1 should’ve just been Geralt imo would’ve made the episodes way more enjoyable and they could really focus the time on the dilemmas that he’s faced with as a Witcher
This is exactly what I would have wanted to see as well. The stories could have been fleshed out more, important characters in those stories could have been given a much more faithful representation, such as the elves and Yennefer. Instead what we got was, in my opinion, a rushed mess, with shoehorned in characters that will later become important. Freaking Vilgefortz for example
I agree. I love Yennefers storyline in the series but it would have worked just aswell later on.
If only they had the patience to make that decision and trusted in an audience to meet new characters later on and not get confused. Anyways theres still plenty more to come with 7 seasons planned.
I like Yen's backstory so I just would have liked for them to remove the Ciri scenes and the whole build up that leads to the third book, and instead maybe only have the scene in Cintra with the curse and Geralt meeting her later in Brokilon forest without knowing she's his child of surprise like in the books. Have season 1 be an anthology series that follows Geralt and Yennefer through the decades, their problem romance and all that, and have the season end with each arc reaching a nice climax (the battle for Sodden and Geralt meeting orphaned Ciri) And leave the prophecy storyline for season 2 and onwards. As it stands season 1 is an incoherent mess with no properly defined themes.
Definitely, I enjoyed any part about Geralt or Ciri, while I did like Yennefer I don't think she should have had so much screen time.
@@turin236 yeah tbh
From my perspective, the first season should have focused on just the seven stories of "The Last Wish", with Yennefer's tale mixed in them and an entire episode dedicated to her. By cutting the weakest part, Ciri's side of the story, and saving it for the second season for a proper story for her, we get a greater focus on not only fewer things to juggle but get greater time to explore them.
The only reason why they included Ciri despite her not appearing in the first good was to draw in "The Witcher 3's" fans, who knew who Ciri was and massively liked her. This is fine in theory, but putting it in practice showed the flaws in doing that. Saving Ciri for the next season, once Geralt and Yennefer were firmly established, would be much easier and allow them to adapt all short stories of the second book, which was the most gutted of the two.
I completely agree and thought this same thing after finishing it. The first season should have been 5-6 episodes of The Last Wish including Yennefer's backstory throughout episodes culminating in the Last Wish short story. Ciri's plot was completely pointless and therefore ruined some of the most vital parts (like Something More) and didn't even include Sword of Destiny which is the necessary former counter part to Something More. Sword of Destiny should have been the second season, then continue the saga from there.
@@kanglongshankz3313 And the funny part is that the showrunners kept saying that they wouldn't be influenced by the games, which they clearly were considering Ciri isn't even mentioned in the first book (apart from when they talk about her mother being pregnant). Her existence in the shows harms the whole experience.
And let's be fair... Ciri wasn't needed. Fans of the books would be perfectly fine with her only showing up in the second season and the fans of the games would still love Geralt's and Yennefer's parts because they are fans of the world and its characters.
Lots of people seem to forget that the thing is called "The Witcher" and not "Geralt and his superfriends". Despite being other very relevant characters in the story, Geralt is and always will be the main star, with him having the best moments overall. So robbing time that could have developed him and replace it with "Girl goes from A to B" is annoying to say the least.
And they also robbed us of seeing their best moments together, like in their journey through the dryad's forest! It's one of the best short stories and we'll never see it realized because they simply had to include it right at the first season!
Yennefer does not need that much of screen time Imo. If they continue that way they might as well call the show "The Sorceress", my point is that everything they show about Yennefer is either made up or briefly mentioned later in other books, wich gives her a misterious aura and then Netflix comes in saying "So yeah, here's all of Yennefer's backstory".
@@pituino I don't quite mind her parts, as they are quite good and well made, but the problem comes with the showrunners trying to do too much all at once for this season.
I think what they could have done is adapting the seven stories of the first book while sprinkling her parts here and there. And then when they adapt the short story where Geralt is recovering from fighting the Striga (think that was the name of the monster the princess became), they invert that and do the "Yennefer Episode", as in that particular short story Geralt doesn't do much besides lying around healing.
Again, the actress playing Yenn did a fantastic job and they could have included her parts without major issues, but Ciri is the one stealing a third of the time while giving a quarter of the results the other two gave.
@@ionga I agree with you, they are well made and the actress did a good job. I don't like it because I feel that it is completely unnecessary and the time could be used in other important things, like Geralt and Ciri meeting in Brokilon or making a better job on the other short stories.
I also find it very infuriating what they did with the magic in the show like it's an exchange. I really don't know how they're gonna do the Korath scene with Ciri looking around to find sources and the fire incident. And all the little things at Aretuza that are completely absurd like turning students into eels, or the simple fact that Fringila is there. In short, I find that those scenes could be better used to explain the story instead of all that bullshit.
I actually saw a lot of great potential in the show. The acting and action were both the highlight. Sure, they could've had the timeline thing executed better but with everything in line I'm looking forward to season 2.
So am I. I think the acting from pretty much everyone was excellent, and going forward I've got high expectations for the show.
As a witcher die hard fan I really enjoyed but as someone who knows the universe super well even I was confused. Apart from that the only thing I didn't like was Triss's casting. Looking forward to season 2
The production value is top notch. But, like a lot of adaptations, they try to cram too much story in small segments. As a result, a lot of important story content is taken out for the sake of run time. Big mistake.
@@BrandonGiordano you forgot fringilla, buddy boy?
such a shame they dont take a piece of got, where its slowly getting into the shit, without cramming everything into 1 season, which makes it just confusing.
still dont understand the "fanboys" who defend this timeline system
When you use a cup to get the spider out of the house instead of killing it
*WITCHA*
*tosses coin*
you should check out story from north america then
Pours ale
@Pinkaugust
They only talk when its necessary
@Pinkaugust Well if it is harmless spider just leave it be. Invading and scaring humans doesnt seem much of a reason for us witchers to kill the spider :D
Game of Thrones was perfectly adapted in my opinion. . . well, up until they rane out of books to adapt. .
That's what everyone says, but even before they ran out of books they were starting to butcher it.
The quality was falling each season
End of season 4 is when it started to really falter. I mean specifically Tyrion vs Tywin scene. But it was good enough. Attack on Titan is as good adaptation of source material as one can get right now but they still have 1 season to go so who knows
Imo Game of Thrones is horribly adapted
Game of Thrones may be poorly adapted, but it was an amazing show, building suspense and improving with every season until they were done with Season 4. After that Season 5 came, and with it the downfall of the quality of Game of Thrones.
@@Kurpitsamehu some of the stuff they cut from the character arcs really hurts it. Book Jon is so much more interesting, same as Cat, Robert, Eddard, Tyrion, Sansa, Sandor.... you know what lol its literally everyone is dumbed down and far less interesting.
Geralt waking up with knowing the market is a target was always funny to me and I just realized it's because that's basically the scene in one punch man where Saitama bails on a partially completed plotline because he realises he needs to go shopping immediately.
LOL an OPM reference in the comment section of The Witcher, I love it! Although it's essentially marketed as a satire battle anime, OPM actually has great depth once you look for the layers.
Cahir is not an evil man depicted in this series. He's just a soldier doing his duty.
Nilfgaard is not some evil empire who obsessed with wanton massacre and destruction.
Foltest is not some fat weak king who go through his food like a pig. He's a handsome, well built man with a keen intelligence and clear mind.
Yeah they made Foltest a bad guy in the show.
To be fair, while initially Nilfgaard might come across as just this medieval Nazi doppelganger jumping onto defenceless kingdoms at will, later into the season they do blur the lines quite a bit, most notably emphasizing Cintra's holocausting of the elves and Nilfgaard's appeal to the poor and downtrodden (Sapkowski himself seems to have based them on the USSR rather than Nazi Germany).
@@yarpen26 "...Cintra's holocausting of the elves..." which is also weird because I don't remember Calanthe being a dick to elves, in fact she was quite peaceful but hey you know can't make a badass woman without turning her into a mindless killing machine according Netflix so there is that.
@@yarpen26 Nilfgaard has a German vibe to it, but not a Nazi vibe. It is more akin of German Empire or Teutonic Knights. This plays around with Polish perceptions of Germany, being both seen as a conquering power, but also a country more developed and better organized, to which many Poles have emigrated freely. Another good comparison is Roman Empire (even named after their capital, like Nilfgaard is). They were seen as brutal conquerors by the people they fought, but themselves saw them as bringing civilization and order to barbarians.
Cahir literally slaughtered a bunch of peasants when it was completely unnecessary.
11:00 so true.
The scene of the massacre at the market was the strongest in the book, as we were shown that the massacre had begun in the midst of the crowd and no one understood who started it. Everyone thought it was Witcher. But there was no massacre in the series, there was only a battle of arrivaled bandits (about whom locals do not care) with Witcher on *empty streets.*
Then there suddenly were a lot of people in the end. Ugh.
gotta read now!
The biggest failure of the show is its lack of depiction on how Geralt and Ciri are fated to find eachother no matter how much Geralt fights it. The story where they meet in Brokilon forest was completely cut along with several other bits that all come together perfectly in the end
I have never read the books and understood that just fine from the show. I guess they could have showed it more but it's just a first season, there's so much you can do while also introducing the characters and world.
The show has boobs.
that is one of the main things i got from the show, how important that bond between geralt and ciri is...
@@ignajara how? They literally just meet and somehow know and then hug. It depicts nothing like what he's talking about from the book. The show wasted almost a full episode with that dumb changeling and them going in the Brokulon forest.
@@FirstSynapse yeah, but there was such wasted time and effort when it came to the Brokulon forest and the changeling guy
Queen Calanthe was a billion times better in the books. I found her extremely captivating to read. She was like a masterful poker player. She had exploited or bent all the rules in her favor, or she just broke the rules, if she could get away with it. She could get away with A LOT because of how feared and clever she was. Even in defeat, she kept her head high. This was a terrifying antagonist to Geralt, but also a very human one. Geralt had to defend his morals against her, despite constant threats of execution and torture, which she made in the middle of a witty and classy conversation. She enjoyed her games. But then, the stakes were raised, and Geralt had to defend the law of surprise against her as well, even though it would cost her her daughter and granddaughter.
So when Calanthe is bested by Geralt, it elevates Geralt. When even she cannot bend the law of surprise, it shows that this is something far greater than human laws. When Nilfgaard finally takes Cintra, you know Nilfgaard is nigh unstoppable. When people speak of Ciri as the lion cub of Cintra (in reference to Calanthe's title as the Lioness of Cintra), that means something. Calanthe elevates Geralt, the law of surprise, Nilfgaard and Ciri.
What does the show give you? She starts off as MCU-Thor without the humor, and then never acts like that again. Then she is constantly trembling, or scowling, or bawling her eyes out. Then she loses in the most undignified manner. Every. Time.
Why? Because they skipped her victories and backstory, portrayed her badassery and human side in the laziest way imaginable, and only showed her defeats.
but... its netflix show why bother with limiting runtime? its not competing for space on tv.
ever heared of money?
It often depends on what they are willing to pay and that also includes the rights. I don`t know how it is with the rights of the witcher, but with the netflix adaptations from daredevil and other marvel series they were only alowed to do this many episode with specific lenghts per episode. For each season they had to rebuy/negotiate how much they are alowed to do.
like peter said money matters and producing a show costs money, like salarys for many many people involved. This in a time where more and more streaming services come out for way more competition.
@@Peter_S.Woldrich This first season cost somewhere between $80-$90 million dollars, so approximately $10 million per episode. It really, really doesn't look like it, either.
@@mwilsonUT that's because they paid Cavill bro _He was the budget_
@@tj843 Then they goofed. Cavill seemed almost obsessed with playing the Witcher, they could probably get away with paying him less.
Maybe they could've cut the Ciri plot and just revealed her at the end of the season (her story was pretty boring imo). With that, they could've focus on Geralt and Yennefer a lot more and all that juicy content you talked about would made it in.
Great video and I'm denitely getting those books.
They should have cutted everything after the Sacking of Cintra...the Sacking of Cintra should have been the last thing in the series!!! How Cintrian riders tried to get Ciri to safety, but they were followed by Cahir...and Ciri's dread at seeing the Nilfgaardians!! And then she would wake up, all a nightmare, right next to Geralt...that would have been better!! Instead we get nothing good!!!
Ciri only appeared in the end of the second book, literally all her scenes apart from the last one can be cut
They changed Ciris story from the books considerably. While the ending to the show season is pretty much the same as the ending of the second book, it doesn’t really feel that way. In one of the earlier stories, Geralt meets Ciri in the Brokilon Forest. She is there because she escaped her escort on its way to a different kingdom to meet its prince. This is where Geralt and Ciri first bond in the story. It’s probably my favorite of all the short stories, and it has some seriously stiff competition. The back and forth with them is just priceless. In the last story of the second book, Geralt is informed by Dandelion that there was a battle at sodden (only referenced in the books) and is told that Cintra was destroyed and a whole bunch of people died in the battle including several mages. Because of this Geralt believes both Yennefer and Ciri are dead and he feels extremely guilty since Ciri would have been safe if he had just taken her with him after the Brokilon Forest adventure. The result is probably my favorite ending to a book ever
Cut Ciri out of "The Witcher"? Time you get those books and change your mind.
Even Yennefer comes in as third character, Ciri is a clear second after Geralt.
If anything, they could have dedicated a full episode on Yennifer in S02E01 to get her back story and introduce her but leave her out of S01 in favour of more Ciri time.
The child of surprise plot point is vital. You can't shove aside Ciri for more Yennefer or even more Geralt. It's called "the Witcher" but it's mainly not just about Geralt.
Honestly, Ciri doesn’t get interesting until she joins the Rats
It never stops to amaze me - how cluttered and overcomplicated bad adaptations are, and how they always manage to exclude the most important story and tone pieces.
To me it's pretty obvious the things that are cut are things they could show without outright telling us. Yes... all those things that give more foreshadowing and the rich dialogue, give more context into the actions of its characters... all were cut in favor of something easier to show.
What the video failed to address is that this is an adaptation. From a book to a show. The same way you can't show every thought of every character on screen as opposed to a book, the same is true for any dialogue. But that's what makes books great. It's the added context to a lot of stuff you enjoy/ed watching. You could argue that since it's a show they have the option to adapt everything correctly without cutting anything since it's not a movie.
But at the end of the day... it's meant to entertain in a different medium. Many people keep bringing up the jumping through time parts of the story without any indication... but I understood everything just fine. And that holds true with other people with similar experiences.
People that read the book or played the games already are biased. As a book reader you enjoy all that dialogue, the exposition and the foreshadowing that comes through clever writing. I love books for the same reason too. And I do read them. But at the end... I accept the differences, I understand why/how they exist and enjoy them for what they are.
GoT is the perfect example for this but I can also bring up Harry Potter. The books had way more stuff in them... did the cuts make the movies worst? That's totally subjective. It's not an objective bad thing. In all 3 instances from the Witcher, to GoT, to Harry Potter and some other examples... I've gone from watching the show/movie to reading the books. I've done the opposite too but that's not important.
What's important and my point is... that I enjoy both for different reasons but I still do because they are the same story. Yes, things get cut for millions reasons we know or only can think of, but it's still the same story told through a different perspective.
It's not some abomination that gets butchered like Dragonball Evolution or Avatar the last airbender. In those instances the end product... no matter how much you love the story... is not the same. Those are objectively bad.
Also... when you say "they always manage to exclude the most important story and tone pieces." that's not necessarily true. Those pieces may be important in written format... but they can be boring on camera. Not everything written can work in live action. And not everything has to work. It's an adaptation for a reason. If the only thing you want is a 1:1 adaptation... then you don't want an adaptation ... you expect a copy of the original done in a different medium.
You nailed the needle on the head, sir
@@sericsson1996 I think people should start thinking about adaptations as a kind of promotion for the books. Some people who like the show and never read the books before will go and buy and read them. They will enjoy the original story and will see the differences. And people who will not go to buy books will just continue to enjoy the show. They don't care how much it differs from the books, they just like the show and it's fine.
But somehow they always remember to include little jimmy that made a mess at a table which takes like 5-8 minutes of the episode
Yeah, instead of finding ways to make something work. They just drop plot points and devices. It's like leaving out certain points in a paragraph that's in Mandarin in order to transcribe it into French. At the end, that beautiful articulate expression of life and death becomes a standard paragraph about how you just live and die as a human losing out in all its contextual meanings.
It wasn't that they cut too much, it's that they added a lot of new material -- such as Yennefer's entire backstory -- that left too little time for more interesting things, like the relationship between Geralt and Ciri. Even so, the best episodes were the ones that focused on Geralt.
Exactly. The best things about the show were copied from the books. The rest was boring.
@@abcdmefgh2843 Because Henry was fixing his parts
Funny thing is that all this cut material was made so Yennefer could get more screentime. Yet in her situation more screentime only made her character worse because we lost all of the mystery and surprise around her. We should first know her as the beautiful and powerfull mage for the information about her past had any imapct on us. It didn't work in other way.
They could give her more screen time and use it to explain politics to the audience. She was a powerful mage for a time and had served various king and important people over the years. We get to see her as a powerful mage, she retains her mystery and the audience know more about the world the story takes place in.
@@adapienkowska2605 It sounds like an idea worth to concider. It would change the plot but there would be some vision behind it
I disagree. I absolutely loved that we got to know about her past first and that the series highlighted her character and history.
@@sammykent5752 They made a mess out of her though. She became inconsistent this way.
@@Bjjbhcoa86 how?
Your transition from saying how good reading the books was to sponsoring audible was great hahah
I have to say Peter Kenny is an amazing narrator.
Well, now I understand WHY THE HELL geralt chooses to fight Renfri for no apparent reason
it's because the gang started the fight
@@vasyajx Renfri told Geralt she will leave town in the morning. In books Geralt trusts her and through Blaviken Mayor random story he finds out she plans to take citizens hostage.
In TV Show... well Geralt just wakes up, says "Renfri" and automatically goes to market.
But she attacked him, he was defending himself!
Netrunner ya I would probably go to the market as well since that’s where he first found her and she was missing lol
In the show, he never really does choose to fight her. They (Renfri's goons) attack him before he has a chance to even answer. Then she basically forces him to kill her, despite him obviously trying not to throughout the entire fight. It's really badly written.
I remember watching this show (having not read the books) and feeling that nothing made sense except the last episode(s). Having random time skips with little to no indication (like age/appearance at least) made it a whole lot more confusing. Some of the CGI looked like it belonged in a remake of Scorpion King, and that horrible color grading filter they slapped on top of it all didn't make things any better.
Basically, the show didn't depict the books at all, it's so vague and I'm surprised that they manage to extend it to seasons 2, though I think they were other reasons behind it, cause season 1 in itself was pretty bad, even something which most of today's shows(back up with big studios) have in common like good CGI, costumes, Make-up, etc., simply design/art, in general, of the Witcher was at least in my opinion awful...
I didn’t read the books either but found it fairly easy to keep track, a bit confusing but not by much.
I hadn't read the books or played the games when I watched season 1 and had no trouble.
@@sirperybLakeney Play Witcher 3. Do yourself a huge favor
@@sirperybLakeney my 75 year old grandmother is watching it with me right now and she is asking questions about characters and all that because she is so invested in it. she is having no trouble at all keeping up with the timelines and in fact even figured it out herself because of the scene with foltest. people are just crying about this show because it isnt a 1 to 1 recreation of their book and none of them can accept that TV has to be watered down in order to sell well and fit a budget. id love to see all these die hard fans make their own witcher series if everything everyone else does is so bad right
“It’s not true that I was an unexpected encounter at home, as a child. That’s not how I became a Witcher. I’m a commonplace foundling, Calanthe.” - Geralt, Sword of Destiny pg 307
Wait, so Geralt lied?
@@BassFlapper Geralt never claims to be a child of surprise in that story. It's Mousesack that makes that claim (iirc).
@@jamtex2 Oh right, now I remember
@@jamtex2 You're correct.
‘He knows this law better than anyone else,’ Mousesack said in a hoarse voice, ‘because it applied to him once. He was taken from his home because he was what his father hadn’t expected to find on his return. Because he was destined for other things. And by the power of destiny he became what he is.’
Sapkowski, Andrzej. The Last Wish: Short Stories 1: Introducing the Witcher (p. 143). Orion. Kindle Edition.
in anime characters have internal thought all the time. "watching a character stare out of a window for 10 minutes straight" is essentially death note, and its fuckin amazing. there is 40 minutes of death note where they literally just walk down a street. its one of the most intense scenes ive every experienced.
I take a chip, AND EAT IT!
But the directing in Death Note is what keeps those thoughts interesting. The animation does wonders too, and the art style emphasizes the emotions of the characters superbly through coloring changes, shadows and movement. I'm not sure if you could pull that kind of experience off with live action. You could approach it, but the animated medium gives you such a large window of opportunity to convey emotions that it is hardly comparable.
Guts does all that shit while chopping waves of people in half...😏
It doesn’t really work in live action for some reason, I thought about that before but only Dexter has really pulled it off
@@YourBlackLocal Dexter pulled it off because of his nature of being a "not-very-okay-mentally" serial killer. We need his internal monologue to relate to him at all, and it embraces his perverted nature. When a mentally healthy character starts talking to himself it just seems weird.
The knight: I've come to claim my reward for saving the king
Queen: take of your helmet
Knight: I can't until midnight
*turns midnight*
Knight: IT WAS ME, SONIC
You made mah day.
Considering the sheer mess that was made out of Season 2, and the way a lot of fan favorite characters were treated in that season... I feel like this would be a great time for this video to have a part 2. At least, I know I'd sure love to see that.
I wouldn't consider season 2 a mess, it was a tad confusing and I don't know how much worse it was story wise compared to the book, but It was a good piece of art. It alone made my Netflix subscription worth it
@@manidhingra5192 no offense but that's pure 🧢
@@keroco3611 People can have opinions my guy. Sheesh, all people do is complain these days.
This channel took an apologia approach to The Witcher, that it's 'too grand to adapt' or that 'books can't really be adapted' which tells me that this youtuber never read any of the material and has no idea what he's talking about but made this video for clicks.
And given even more recent events with some of the information we know now. It goes a long way to explain why the show runners shit the bed the way they did.
To sum up the 26 minute video, If the showrunners removed Ciri and Yennefer and focused solely on Geralt until it was time for Ciri and Yen to be introduced they would have had enough time to adapt the nuance of his character in the books.
You mean adapting the source material by using the source material? Crazy how they had everything presented on a silver platter, just hire people that can shorten it out properly for tv episodes which the first books are already perfect for. Could easily have another GoT with possibility of less of an ass ending but no, had to prove everyone they're better than some Pole and here we are, having the one guy who cared, abandon ship because it was unworkable.
I’m Polish and I grew up with those books. For me, the Netflix adaptation felt not just not loyal to the books, but downright disrespectful of our culture and legends. Yennefer’s character was completely butchered, the whole story with the Striga, the first ever written and possibly most beloved was done so badly I had to stop watching at that point. It was just so bad all around. If only they just stuck to adapting each short story as it was, without trying to turn it into one big narrative with confusing timelines. Let us know Geralt better before introducing Yennefer and then Ciri, only flesh them out more once they start to adapt the saga. Like this, we get a half-baked and unrelatable Geralt, a Yennefer who feels more like a pouty child than an almost 100 years old, powerful witch and Ciri with all her trauma spilling onto the rather lighthearted and sometimes really damn funny short stories. Even Jaskier, though he was probably the best done character in the series, didn’t escape the bastardization as they conveniently forgot that Jaskier was a womanizer and a bit of an idiot, sure, but he was also someone with strong beliefs and will to defend them. How the hell would the Jaskier who once challenged a whole gang of thugs bragging about hunting dyads, the Jaskier who was best friends with witchers, dwarfs, elves, how could that Jaskier ever write mocking racist songs and talk about how you’re not remembered for respect? Ugh.
Pięknie napisane :)
Anyways it had good looking people, sex scenes, cool sword fights and magic pew pew pew.
@Ola Kowalska I completely agree with you.
Close your eyes, take the title out of the picture and then enjoy. It's a terrible adaptation. But, its not a bad show. You want to see something awful, watch Wheel of Time. Comparatively speaking, Witcher was a documentary
@@theccpisaparasite8813 It's a terrible show with bad writing, incoherent plot and cringy dialogue. It's just that American audiance has become so braindead, that they will watch and clap anything containing boobs, muscle, action and special effects. That anyone can give it over 2 stars is beyond me.
The original books are absolutely amazing but I'm really not sure that english translation do them justice. Here in Russia the Witcher saga was a cult fantasy classic long before the games came and I think that a lot of this success can be attributed to the amazing russian translation (thanks to an amazing translator Evgeny Weissbrot, may he rest in peace... actually the last book of the series was translated by another translator and it's really not good). I think that it's even more difficult to do good translation from polish to english since russian and polish are both slavic languages.
@Precog Yeah, I read the last wish in english then chaged to my native laguage for the rest of the books and it was way better. The english versions are more pragmatic, aming to just make sure you get all the info. While the other version makes it as if the info is just there and you take it. It is difficult to explain,
The German translation that I have been reading is really great, too. Haven't tried the English one.
I would think it's easier to translate from Polish to Russian since the languages are related. Harder to English. But I liked the first two books in English though. But then, I can't read Polish so I can't really judge or compare. :P
Translating from one language to another is always difficult. Even strongly related languages have different idioms or rhythms which may hinder readability, punch or presentation. It's why people are still translating Beowulf and the Iliad, because there will never be a perfect translation.
That being said, great translators can pinpoint what is most remarkable about a source text and focus on that aspect for the translation. I'm guessing that's what Evgeny Weissbrot did. Similarly, the Dutch translations of Harry Potter were magnificent because they were written with the dry wit and whimsy of the originals in mind.
I had heard before that the English translations of Sapkowskis books weren't very good. Sadly, we're probably stuck with them until some other publisher wants to invest in a full translation - which they are unlikely to do. Or, until a fan makes an excellent translation and shares it online. It's too bad, because I really love the lore and grit of the Witcher and I can only really fall back on the translations and the video game (though the last one does compensate hugely for the books).
Books are not that good as everyone says they are ok. They are far better books in the world and the autor has no plan for the story he create in the saga. In orginal the dialogs are the best thing but the world that create Sapkowski only for the plot is kinda empty. There are good characters like Vilgefortz, Regis, Dijkstra, Yen, Bonhart, Fillipa Eilhart, Jaskier, Yarpen Zigrin, Zoltan. They could be far better if autor focused on expanding his mythology by presenting an interesting plot that would not amount to a fight of good and evil. It would be much more interesting if the main antagonist won instead of dying in a pulled way.
Book Dryads = Beautiful green nymphs
Netflix Dryads = Plain jungle ladies
Book elves = beautiful/handsome
Netflix elves = Goblins
Art direction is the worst. Everything looks like it's from a Syfy channel movie from 2008
True :D Model who played Toruviel had potential to be beautiful elf, but end results were disappointingly goblinish.
Best comment ever !!
Such losers
Who the fuck thought casting people with diastrophic dwarfism as dwarves is a good idea?
I never got how this adaptation got such praise in the public eye... every episode is quite literally a clusterfuck.
Henry Cavill. He's the only reason it got any praise. And the Toss a Coin song. That song is pretty good.
If someone hasnt read the books and maybe only played witcher 3 its a 7-8/10show for me simply because of Henry Cavill... But hands down reading the books and know the lore makes this show just trash... But thats how randoms probably think about Star Wars too, if they only watch the movies and dont want to learn the iceberg behind it.
Ignorance is a blessing.
As someone whose only exposure to The Witcher is the Netflix series and who considers himself at least a little critical of the media he watches, It wasn't hard to follow. Like, it wasn't amazing, but it was definitely engaging at least. I wasn't checking out and was interested to see what would happen next. And most people aren't looking for much more than that.
@@PhyreSpore read the books, simple, just read it
Most Americans are used to bad movies by hollywood especially when its fantasy
I was so confused when they were talking about the law of surprise I swear
Right 😭
I had thought they were secretly in love behind the queens back.
i mean, so is most characters in universe
you might want to change your profile picture: look up penguinz0 the worst youtube to understand what I mean
@@Robyamdam it’s just a picture calm yourself..
Exactly what my gripe with the adaptation is, picked the very two stories/episodes, where I felt the writers totally missed the point. Liked and earned a sub.
Thanks man, I'm glad you liked it :)
Me too
This series can be summed up quite simply:
Scenes with Geralt: 9/10
Scenes without him: 5/10
I loved most of Yennefer's scenes. She was nearly more compelling that Geralt. Geralt is cooler, though.
Nah fam. It’s more like Geralt, Yen, and Jaskier 9/10
Ciri 5/10
@@marvinarsolon715 Yea, Yen and Jaskier were great characters actually.
It's more like:
The entire adaptation: 5/10
That was rough watch for my Witcher pals and I.
The show runners had very little clue of what made Sapkowski's work so brilliant.
@@marvinarsolon715 I felt that ciris actress carried her scenes they were just played with slow and lack luster story structure
Henry did amazing as Geralt thats about all I can say good about the second season
Even he doesn't have the charm or sarcastic attitude he had in the first season. For some reason,they managed to make him more emotionless and boring with the reason of oh witchers don't feel anything but literally every other witcher in kaer morhen acts as a normal human being, laughing around on Lame jokes
Joey stole the show for me. He's too good of an actor for the show LMAO
Season 2 was worse for the people who haven't read the books, Even I, who has read the books, was confused most of the time. And again with the explanation at the end in the first episode.
@@samayasidd8161 You sure? I liked it a bit more than the first, and considering how the fanboys in this comments section have been acting, I'm not about to touch those books in a while.
@@hyro3292 All in all the show is pretty entertaining. A lot of us fans just really dislike how its some weird fanfiction instead of an actual adaptation. We don't expect 1:1 tho, theres a lot of boring parts that they could filler out or do something better with. Just kinda sucks this is what we get imo
Bruh that Witcher 3 soundtrack in the background tho....
And it's infinitely better than the shows.
@@TheButterShowThatsMe Oh absolutely, I wasn't even aware that that was ever an argument haha..the only thing the show nailed was Geralt, and we have Henry Cavill to thank for that.. originally, Geralt wasnt even gonna be in the show
Ammar I. Borovnica I sincerely doubt that he wasn’t gonna be in the show
@@GAPIntoTheGame I heard he was gonna be reduced to a side character, but it was a mere rumor.
@@GAPIntoTheGame Nah you can check, which would make sense, as the Showrunner is pretty liberal n shjt
Well, you've convinced me. I'm going to read those books.
We'll see you in a month, lol
Good Call, the books are incredible. I've read them several times each since they are still enjoyable even after a bunch of reads
Most disappointing book series I've ever read. Campy writing, most of the short stories and side stories in the saga are just folk tales with a twist. The Character interactions and development are contradictory and inconsistent. Pretty much all the major arcs spoil themselves by revealing the conclusion through narration before telling how the events transpired. None of the characters feel like real characters. 6/10 at best.
@@urekmazino6519 Taking an inspiration from folk tales and folk tales with a twist are a major difference. Show me examples of your "contradictory and inconsistent" character interactions. Never been spoiled on anything, no clue what you're on about. The characters are a take on classic stereotypes that evolve as the story progresses, it's done very well and they do feel like real characters. Hating on something popular won't make you interesting buddy.
@@urekmazino6519 Right now, I'm still on the first short story compilation (The Last Wish), and I'm enjoying it. I like the writing style, and the bits of worldbuilding are enough to keep me coming back. I'm not yet sure if I'll stay for the actual series, but time will tell.
The problem with The Witcher is that it seems like they adapted the Wikipedia summary of the stories, not the books
Gabriel Machado I think even the Wikipedia summary is better and deeper than the show:)
@@olelukje3928 no
Wikipedia summaries are true to the books, unlike Netflix series.
Yeah right 🤣
give the show a chance ... season 2 will rock
I have not read the books and when I watched the show, I did not quite understand why he was called "The Butcher of Blaviken" after he killed those men, from our POV Geralt just killed some people that was already armed and was also trying to kill a little girl+wizard that was simply trying to avoid getting killed by hiding, but now you're telling me that there was an actual choice Geralt could have made there to avoid the killings BECAUSE he COULD'VE change Renfri's mind... holy shit ok
LOL, I'm the opposite. I listened to The Last Wish audiobook first, and seeing clips from the movie, I'm like, "Who is that?" or "I'm pretty sure Dandelion (Jaskier in movies) was NOT in that scene." The changes are even bigger than I expected, and I'm sad that they cut out "A Grain of Truth." That story would be very fun to see on screen.
@@brookles6177 well now season 2 is out, they’ve also ruined that story
I don't think in the book it's clear whether he could have changed Renfri's mind or id Renfri would have killed the innocent people or not. It's possible she was lying about it to Geralt to make him feel bad. She does lie a lot in the story and is obviously trying to manipulate Geralt and using her sad backstory for that purpose.
I always got the feeling that the thing is there was no way of knowing and Geralt did pretty much best thing he could have done, it's just it did not work well for him personally. It is something that is a reoccurring motif in the books, that Geralt's heroism goes underappreciated. And the Renfri's story is sad not because she is not evil, it is because she is evil, and it is impossible to tell if she was born a monster or turned into one by people who wanted to gain from it.
@@Zuzannaq That’s all true, all points here could be made and that’s what makes the witcher such an interesting topic for conversation. It is also why it’s such a shame that the show doesn’t seem to incorporate anything beyond generic Hollywood action into itself.
It's Hollywood's obsession with the Big Reveal structure. They think it's cool to reveal the exposition and character motivation after the climax, but in reality what happens is the audience doesn't care about what's happening because they're missing the context. And when the Big Reveal comes the audience doesn't care because they've already tuned out.
Just so everyone knows, the entire audio book for, The Witcher: The Last Wish, is on UA-cam for free.
And the irony is that series is 8 hours long, and the audiobook is 10 hours, which is just 2 hours longer. But their level of storytelling is very different.
@@НикитаИваненко-б9ъ With almost the same amount of time,the Audiobook can tell a better story leagues beyond the 80 million dollar adaptation.
@@DrRoo91 Exactly!
And some of the narrators are top notch, depending on the video.
it's a great read as well if you can afford the book!
WOOOOOOAH
There is a massive error in the "matter of price" segment. Gerlat DID NOT say anything about law of surprise being used on him, Mousesack does. MOREOVER Geralt was not child of surprise, he was dropped at kear morhen by his mother. He clearly states that in his talk with the queen in the last story "Something more". He said Mousesack twisted the fact to suit his goal at the time.
Naxster You are right. He also mistakenly says Pavetta is Calanthe’s granddaughter. Pavetta is her daughter ,of course, Ciri being the granddaughter.
Oh, the inconsistencies in the show... Can't be counted...
- Renfri. Geralt tries using Axii on her and she says "Doesn't work, I'm a mutant". Well, that just confirms Stregobor's story, so she is a mutant (mutations are irreversible, as Geralt says) and it means killing her is a good call! Which removes the need for Geralt's moral dillema, troubled conscience etc. In the book, it makes sense (and so does her plan in Blaviken and ultimatum talk).
- "Magic works like this: you do smth magic and smth dies. You move a stone and flower dies"... And we never see the principle again...
- Doppler turns into Mousesack and says "I know all you have ever known" only to later attack Kahir for "not knowing what Ciri was"?! And what was the doppler's plan when he attacked Kahir, anyway?!
- Battle of Sodden is to start, Yen says "I lived 3 lifetimes"... When?! She was about 18 when she saw little Foltest. If she is 98 (like in the books), how old is Foltest then?! So, at best, she was about 68-70 at that moment... Hardly 3 life times... In the book, it is so and actually makes sense (Foltest is 40 in the books, btw)...
- "THey took my choice away", says Yennefer about having a baby... Ummm, no... The way it was done in the show, you requested it!
And so on, and so on...
You're right. But when reading the story for the first time we think that Mousesack is telling the truth about Geralt's past so it doesn't change what he said about adding context to the law of surprise and about Geralt's behavior.
@@do__ob In the books, Geralt suspected Pavetta was pregnant when claiming the law... It is much later that he said "No, I will not claim the child" and explains why. And Mousesack even, in Brokilon, suggested he would do nothing if Geralt would try to take the child (btw, why wasn't the real Brokilon scene included in the show?! It was awesome and would explain the connection between Ciri and Geralt; this way it is hard to believe the connection even exists if they never even saw each other). Show writers just used "destiny" as an excuse for bad and lazy writing.
That real Brokilon scene explains also "there is destiny, but there is also something more". Which we don't see in the show.
@@ivanstepanovic1327 yeah I know. I've read it too and I agree, the relationship between Ciri and Geralt in the series is non existant. They've never met and Ciri only learns about Geralt when her grandma tells her "go find Geralt" before dying, which makes their reunion at the end of the series very insignificant. In the book the emotion builds up through the story, in the show it doesn't.
So I agree with you. I was just replying to Naxster about the error in the video about Geralt's past. I don't think it changes the scene that much.
What an excellent breakdown of what went awry in the adaptation. I'm personally very aggrieved that they cut the important parts of the Sword of Destiny short story, namely Geralt and Ciri bonding before the war
And you know the dislikes are from idiots who didn't watch the video
I believe it won't go a season and book, So I believe we will have these time jumps during the second season too. Also if you check the budget they did a really good job and the story structure is exactly like the collection of the short stories and the last episode is a really good conclusion.
Yeah, the forest part between Geralt and Ciri is the time that bonds them together, not just 1 single word of destiny like in the show.
@Digonto Zahid you clearly didn't watch the video
This analysis is even more relevant another season later.
I’ve been watching it so far and I have to say, things are so freaking confusing as hell. Like from the beginning in season 1, it shows the fight between Geralt and that kikamora monster. Yeah okay, cool fight but wtf is going on? I haven’t read the books or played the games so how would I know what kind of monster that is? Episode 1 would’ve been a whole lot better if it included a short prologue of the Witcher Universe, with Geralt speaking himself, providing brief summary’s of how the universe was created, what chaos is, what Witcher’s are, how he became a Witcher, where he became a Witcher, the ethnic groups, the mages etc and so on and so on and then bam kick right in into what’s going on. THATS how it should’ve started. Imagine if Squid Game started at red light and green light, yeah okay cool but what LEAD up to that event? The story telling is a big problem, it’s too rushed and when a story is too rushed, how can you feel certain emotions from a certain scene when you don’t know the MAIN reason why. They have got to fix this. Great actors, poor story telling. This series has great potential, it just needs to learn from its mistakes.
@@metalrockstarizer89 disagree
@@metalrockstarizer89 shut up boy
@@metalrockstarizer89 personal opinion that it didn't need that, as someone who hadn't played the game read the books or looked at anything witcher related prior to the show I think it does quite a good job at explaining those things as the story progresses, throwing all of it in an exposition dump is unnesseccary when it can show rather than tell, also the kikamora can be glossed over since it adds nothing to the story since it is simply "a monster than has been causing trouble nearby" and the visuals do enough to show what it is and the fact that it hurt a deer which was the main point of that scene
What killed the show for me is the fact that Geralt wasn't in Brokilon with Ciri. This is unacceptable.
And they did the Dryads so dirty. Diversity barbarians with spears... What a joke.
@Lelouch Vi Britannia and topography as well.. What about dol blathana, so called valey of flowers. And Netflix made it into some dry canyon or desert or whatever it was 😆😆
@@kristiankopera and then made the village of Dol Blatana into some skyscraper shit. Like how the fuck are they farming there? And also, where was that old Gramgram with a book and her assistant? These were really important character.
@@ninjakoule9878 yeah I feel like they were trying to do something "fantasy like" but for no reason 😆 it almost look like they intentionally did everything wrong...
That's why I liked the polish adaptation Wiedźmin. It's set in Poland and the world looks really believable, with actual historical castles and such (well, they had small budget). When I first saw the american Witcher, I didn't understand why the world looks so over the top fantasy, like from a fairytale.
"You can't adapt thought on screen"
Every Macbeth film adaptation ever: * Allow me to introduce myself *
Macbeth is a theatrical play though.
That’s a play
I've seen it done sometimes on Shadow and Bone, Arthdal Chronicles, etc.
Edit: Arthdal Chronicles does it a lot. It's a Korean low fantasy action drama, if anyone's curious. If I remember right, Asian and Southeast Asian shows in general do it pretty often.
In the form of dialogue, for example, in true detective
There`s alot of ways to get the thoughts of a thinking person on screen. Needs creativity though so... nvm.
You're 15 minute explaination of the missing context in Episode 1, gave me more of an emotional feel than the entire episode did. Just goes to show the writers aren't very good in this show
That's the thing I was afraid the most about Witcher adaptation to the screen.
Witcher is quite philosophical. I was afraid that Hollywood will focus on monsters and magic and disregard the philosophical side of the stories. And it feels like that's exactly what they did.
Yes. You are absolutely right. Even the game closer to the books than the show. Cavill did good job in my opinoin, but he whole idea of the show is wrong
@@ekaterinakornyushina7227 So happy someone agrees with me. Game was good because it's done by Polish studio that understands the nuances of the books. I feel like show is extremely simplified version of the books.
@@kamael1125 Yes, this game is brilliant, it was made by real fans of Sapkowski's world. I haven't ever played this game, I watch my son playing and watch youtube gamers' videos like a movie))))). I like this movie more than Netflix series. Yesterday I've found Polish audiobook on youtube. This is masterpiece! I understand about 30 % with my native Russian language, but English subs save the situation.
They couldn't even get the monsters and magic right. Their magic rules are inconsistent compared to the books and even games. Most of the monsters had a terrible CGI and not enough screen time.
@@kamael1125 as a casual who didn’t enjoy the games (didn’t like it but didn’t hate it) I really enjoyed the show
so they ran out of budget after hiring henry cavill
I'm not sure since Henry Cavill was a big fan of the game and being Geralt was like a dream for him
@@ptitecame6688 yeah but he's not gonna work for free tho.
@@ptitecame6688 Dream or not. Gotta get paid. Plus, he’s awful as Geralt.
@@Nevirate like rdj as ironman that's awful too
@@bigdaddyb1837 Your point?
I haven't read the books or played the games. I vaguely knew of the existence of them, that was it.
And yes, many parts, especially the "The Market" and the stoning afterward, were _VERY_ confusing. Watching this, it makes a lot more sense now.
And that is, indeed, the problem.
I enjoyed the show. But it did have many moments that were confusing. Some I assumed were due to lack of information (not a great choice,) but others I had zero idea. In this case, I didn't even guess that the books had more information that made it understandable.
Anonymous Freak While its true that this show can be confusing for people who’ve never read the books or at least played the games, I think that that is exactly the point. The show is targeted towards people who are already familiar with the source material and the hardcore fans in general. It already assumes that you know the world, setting, etc. and just serves as an adaptation of the books (not the games). And yes, for a person who has never had any prior experiences with the Witcher, it must seem pretty confusing, especially with the non-parallel timelines of the episodes, but that is because the show is simply geared for a whole other audience. That doesn’t mean that you can’t enjoy it as a newcomer to the story of course, but it’s not surprising that it just throws you in the cold water right off the bat.
@@willhelmtell4980 Yeah, it took until probably episode 3 or 4 to fully "get" all the timelines.
When I first saw that scene I thought the mage had played Geralt and then turned the town against Geralt so he couldn't retaliate.
Willhelm Tell yeah I have to disagree. Netflix threw a LARGE amount of money at this show. I highly highly doubt Netflix of all companies would make this show on that budget to pander to the smaller audience. Also if that was the case I don’t think they would’ve applied such diversity to the cast. Seems like classic Netflix and why cut out things that the fans already knew about if it’s for us already on the ride. I think that it was written to appeal to many while keeping the fandom in mind to make everyone happy.
@@karlmarcs31 ummmmm that's exactly what he did. The townspeople had no idea what was going (on in the books or the episode) - all they saw was a witcher brutally kill all those people for no apparent reason. They had no idea Geralt had just saved their lives and because of Stegobor helping to incite them, it was easy for the townsfolk to turn on him. He resorted to that tactic to save his own skin.
The adaptation of "A Question of Price" turned Calanthe into a brash fighting woman when she was actually a careful, proud woman of guile. She ASKED Geralt to be there because she knew a monster-looking guy was going to claim her daughter. (Although "asked" is perhaps too soft of a word.) She made sure his sword was hidden behind her throne. She didn't chafe at the idea of the banquet, she planned it to try to get what she wanted. She tricked Duny into removing his helmet because she thought Pavetta (or at least the gathered nobles) would never agree to the match. The woman on screen just wasn't Calanthe.
I think that was the beauty of Calanthe character from the books. She is powerfull woman and thats been shown without monger marches against neighborhood rulers (or who it was on the show? I don't really know because I can't handle it more than episode 3). But her power been revealed trough her persona. Even when she asks it feels more like a demand.
But in the show, didnt Geralt say that Calanthe knew Duny was coming, so thats why she wanted him there, next to her?
He says something like "you knew he would come and you wanted me to kill him"
That’s too nuanced for a female character on Netflix. They must be above criticism or the men don’t look as bad.
@@scott96999 How was Calanthe in the show above criticism? She tried to kill an innocent man her daughter loved, while pretending to accept him. Clearly showing her in a very bad light. Also she was clearly stated to be a war monger who butchered elves.
@@louis8487 In the book, Duny wasn't so innocent. He had specific goal in mind when he execute his plan. I won't say more because it will be a spoiler. Only that this is The Witcher, things are more complex than just right and wrong.
I was honestly confused as to why they decided to do everything out of chronological order. Also the need to shove so many interceding storylines into episodes was so frustrating, it robbed yennefer of all mystery and the "ah, that's why she's like that" moment instead of how it's pretty much explained before we even meet her as a power hungry and powerful woman
I thought I was just too dumb to understand what was going on in The Witcher, so I just assumed it was genius. Turns out, it just lacks a lot of story... I'm glad I watched this video. Now I know I'm not (completely) stupid.
Yeah, the show certainly gives way too much credit to its viewers, myself among them. I actually did have to rewind stuff every once in a while to make sure I got everything. In a perfect show, once started you shouldn't need to touch the remote unless you need a bathroom break or want to make yourself a sandwich.
@@yarpen26 too much credit to the viewer? No, it's just poorly written. It's not the viewers fault if the producers can't tell a story properly
@@yarpen26 too much credit? What are you even talking about? The show would not appeal to anyone who doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the witcher before watching, it is just rushed, pacing is off and leaves the viewer completely lost
This is why I hate the average consumer. They feed you mediocre content and you take it as amazing. You are basically rewarding companies for not giving a shit for quality, same thing happened with GoT
yarpen26 it assumes you’ve already spent a fair bit of money on novels some people might not even know exists. That’s just bad writing. You can play the games without the books just fine, the books further add to the story, but aren’t completely necessary.
I haven't read the books and I thought it was alright, but now I'm realizing it could've been so much better.
I just finished reading the first book yesterday and I was blown away by how much better it was. Definitely grab yourself a copy.
Please read the books. They're top top literature
I only played the games and even I knew it was adapted terribly.
The show was exactly what I expected it to be; a rushed, mediocre mess. I loved the books and games and both had so much content and context that made you feel part of the world. The show not only cut the best parts of the first two books but made way too many unnecessary changes.
Ironically, this show is exactly how described by Cavill's line in The Last Wish Episode. "It's like ordering a pie and finding it has no filling."
I read The Last Wish, Sword of Destiny, & Blood of Elves, before watching the Netflix series. I thought it was all pretty mediocre and forgettable. The series was as much of a slog as Blood of Elves. But I'm a fan of the games so I'll keep reading. Time of Contempt seems ok so far.
I agree!
@@robertherrick6703 I was hoping they would cover 1 book per season. Last Wish has so much good content. They would probably have to change the ending on that one because Sapkowski decided to change Geralt's fate a bit. It can be done but you need either Sapkowski with talented writers that he approves of (He's extremely picky with anyone handling his work) or other talented writers on the level of the CDPR team. Lauren Hissrich in my opinion is not a very good Show runner. She thinks she's clever switching through time lines without context and calls it "challenging the audience". All the of good stuff is already in the books, no need to change it, just make sure it translates on screen. Not to mention they fired both the costume director and the special effects team. That right there lets you know they were just throwing away money.
I'm actually finishing up the Time of Contempt and it is slow at first but once it gets to the sorceress' party, shit hits the fan! It's so exciting and they really did Vilgefortz dirty in the Netflix show. I don't want to spoil it but it's awesome.
@@DrRoo91 That would have been the smartest decision, a season for each book
@@nicholas4727 Jaskier was the character's original name in the books, to begin with…
"Netflix's Witcher" and "faithfully" should never come in one sentence.
They first cut content from the books, then add some random bullshit, and what's left of the books they twist beyond any recognition.
"HUurrRrr SorCeRerS TuRn To Eels!!"
You can make entertainment not faithful to its original content and still make something good of it. The Witcher games 1-3 are a perfect example of this. They essentially created their own canon, and it is absolutely excellent.
This show, on the other hand, left a bad taste in my mouth. It's as though the writers and directors, once they got started, just wanted to get it over with, like a wet fart in an elevator.
i read the first book, which is just a colletion of short stories, and thought "Why couldn't the show just make a stream line event with original content?"
@@dericmederos1514 yeah especially since they're glued together as Geralt's recollections in Brokilon
@@dericmederos1514 The saddest part? They made 4 different Spidermans in 20 years, but we'll probably be stuck with this shitty Witcher adaptation for decades.
The biggest problem of the show (or one of the biggest to me) is they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They felt the need to have Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri all at once. Creating stories or situations that didn't happen to give them all relatively equal screen time. And like stated, the actual stories were cut and condensed to make room for a lot of unnecessary segments with Ciri or Yennefer. I also felt like they focused too hard on humans being the only non-monster monsters. Whereas in the books, they show how any person, any race, any status could be, and often were worse that a kikimore. See the Wild Hunt/Red Riders as an example.
Nobody really talks about it, so here it goes:
Isn’t the Disney 2005 movie of Narnia: LWW one of the best adaptions ever? Really, as a kid I loved it but recently I reread the book then watched the movie and I think LWW was made really damn well. Even added to some bits of it! The 2 other movies are questionable, but LWW was fantastic.
Stefan van der Sandt yes, exactly! LWW proved that a director doesn’t have to shy away from Christian values in a work to still have empowering messages and appeal to a secular audience. It brought the story to life and had a beautiful story to tell - whether or not you’re Christian, you’re gonna love the power of forgiveness for Edmund, the childhood faith of Lucy, the sacrifices of Aslan for these kids and this world, etc. And while I don’t believe the characters were portrayed the same as the book (I don’t think that’s possible, and either way the extra scenes/narratives with Peter and Edmund existed, of course), but that only shows the other point - the mentality should be making the story, not adapting it. With the characters, they added, not subtracted, and this was the same for the plot. I love 2005 Narnia, it is such a well-made adaption - I don’t remember whether I read or saw LWW first as a kid, and that proves a great thing - it really didn’t matter which came first.
Sorry, I’ll edit that year error :)
Meh. It's good, but something about its tone never resonated with me. Even as a little kid, i liked lord of the rings (with the scary scenes skipped) more than narnia.
Wow, y’all, I like Narnia more, if only because (while I love LOTR) I’ve always had an adoration for Narnia. The world just felt more lively, and as a kid I loved thinking up Golden Age stories about the Pevensies, making it a main reason why I got into books in general. I never read the LOTR books cause they were always really dense for me. Narnia isn’t as grand a story, I’ll give you that, but Narnia felt more magical and creative. I feel outnumbered, fam!
Narnia is a children's book based on religious fables that's meant to be thinly veiled Christian indoctrination. Disgusting garbage that you should keep as far away from your children as possible.
i've always thought so too. i never really cared much from a christian standpoint - specially cause i didnt understand it as a kid -, but reading the books and watching the movies, i was not disappointed with how great the movie told everything it needed in the screentime and was loyal to the book.
only one thing: i think the book works better with the emotional parts, and since the movies start with LWW, people who didnt read the original story will not know all about diggory, polly and the wardrobe story (except for the casual hints on LWW), but this part is only my personal perspective, of course.
all in all they did a great job and i do agree that you can enjoy wether you're religious or not.
They set themselves up even worse than you know. They weren't just adapting one book, this season attempts to adapt two books, both short story collections, The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny.
I feel like one book wouldn't have been that hard to cut down into 8 episodes, but now, instead of 6 stories into 8, it's 12 stories into 8. That means that some stories are entirely left out. Almost all the stories in The Witcher lead into each other, or are at least connected. Story beats lead into each other in a very natural and enjoyable way. Having to cut one of them out is really going to hurt the narrative of the rest, let alone the 5 or so they ended up cutting.
I still like the show, and think it's a good introduction to The Witcher, but I think the books are a much superior way to enjoy the story and characters.
They only adapted 1 short story from Sword of Destiny, and 3 short stories from The Last Wish.
The issue that these books don't work outside of the narrative framing of Geralt re-telling stories of his travels. They would have been better of ignoring the short stories as fodder for a season and instead picked one or two and filled in the blanks. The rest could be used for filler later on as Geralt interacted with people who had heard Jaskier's tall tales of his exploits.
You cant understand the series without having read the books. If you have read the books, you cant like the show, because the books are infinitly better.
As someone who has read the books, I agree with you. I think it's enjoyable for people who haven't read the books but I was just too busy getting mad at the show for doing so many dumb things. I had to shut that part of my brain off in order to start enjoying it
They wouldn't want it to be all about a masculine white male with white hair doing manly things like killing monsters and shit. Oh no no no no, that simply won't do. To be politically correct they had to include a woman and a girl to give things a "feminine" touch.
What's really wild is that, though it's been a hot minute since I watched the show, I remember thinking that a lot of its runtime felt wasted and directionless until the last episode or so, like what was left in the show was the bits that should have been cut. Most of these points seem like they could have easily been made the focus in a more condensed way with actual clever writing, where a whole conflict can at least be addressed if not fully explored by a few well-placed lines and good visual storytelling. But doing that is hard, so this is what resulted.
The scenes involving Geralt in this series were hands-down my favorite. Cavill completely showed how much he loves the Witcher universe, and it was so great to see someone as faithful as him putting on the performance that he did. Also loved the casting of Jaskier, and Joey Batey and Cavill definitely captured some good moments together. Just my opinion, but Lauren Hissrich seems very devoted as well and I have a feeling season 2 is going to vastly improve on some of the criticisms the show received.
But that's the thing: the Henry Cavill as Geralt scenes were the ONLY good thing about this show. The rest is total trash
Bernardo Carneiro I didn’t think they were all bad and idk if I’d go as far as to say it’s the ONLY good thing about the show but I admit that there was definitely a lot of content that could have been cut. Basically the entire Ciri storyline was a snooze fest for me and I would’ve loved more of the Witcher Contract type episodes like the Striga one. Overall though I’m still excited for season 2 because I know the show runners have been very vocal about the fact that they are listening to criticisms and want to make sure the fans are happy and they do the Witcher universe justice. I believe they already said they’re changing the Nilfgaardian army, but don’t quote me on that. I’m still hoping we see A LOT more Geralt next season and considering the storylines have finally converged I’m guessing we will. Also hyped to see how they portray Vesemir, Eskel, Lambert, etc.
In my opinion, if Cavill loved it so much he should have stood up for the source material and not bowed down to the studios while they ruined it. It's shit, and it will remain so because nobody else will touch it.
@@matthiasthulman4058 He's an actor though, not a director. It's unfair to expect of actors to actively participate in writing the script especially when they don't always see all of it (and even if they do, they are bound by contract).
@@Spellweaver5 I meant more along the lines of just turning down the role if it wasn't true to the source.
“It’s like ordering a pie and finding it has no filling...”
Ironically, that Netflix's adaptation in a nutshell.
Could be worse. With Altered Carbon, they replaced the filling with cotton wool and turpentine, because reasons.
@@jacobshaftoe8326 season 1 of Altered Carbon is bad ass though.
@@Pottan23, then never read the books, so it can stay that way for you, I guess...
@@jacobshaftoe8326 I've only read the first book, lost interest after that. It genuinely wasn't that much better than the show, just different.
I will concede that the series made a huge mistake adding the whole soap opera arc at the end of season 1.
I REALLY hated the 3 stories going on at the same time. I couldn't keep up, and it got irritating because I would be getting invested in one story and then got pulled out of it for another
Yea it should've been about geralt more then the others. Why pay him big bucks to show us these lesser characters smh
That and the timeline jumps. It took me way too long to realize the story was jumping back and forward with time, and it took a lot of enjoyment out of the show for me.
3032021 / 10:22p
That are wasting their time with Yennefer, she was never a main character. Her backstory takes no more than 2 or 3 pages in all books compined. And when she is a part of some story there is always Geralt, Ciri or other sourceress with her
They should have at least cut out Ciri, she isn't in the Last Wish books at all and they would have had so much more time to flesh out the stories in the show without having to follow her shit.
@@savaralyn0951 Completely agree. I understand they thought they had to introduce Ciri right away since she later becomes such an important character, but it really would've worked better if they made the first season about Geralt (and Yennefer) and only hint at Ciri's existence. Make us aware of the fact that Destiny is a real force in this universe, that something like a Law of surprise exists, and that Geralt has a child bound to him and is avoiding his responsibility. Use the time to really build up his character, his relationship with Yennefer and Jaskier (and add Nenneke!) and the way he struggles to find his purpose in a world that hates him for who he is.
Than the last episode would be him finding out that Cintra is under siege and heading there to finally get and protect Ciri. End it on a cliffhanger of him arriving only to find the city destroyed and Ciri gone, but knowing she's alive. Do a whole emotional scene where he meets badly injured and dying queen Calanthe as she pleads for him to go and save her. Roll credits.
And then make the second season about her and her escape, and her and Geralt finding each other.
1:35 I kinda disagree, while I would say it's trickier to perform on the big screen, you can definitely do "internal monologues" by just having the main character voice-over. Dexter is an excellent example of this. That aside, this is an amazing eye opening video. Thank you for making this man, never knew how much I missed out on by not reading the books and just watching the TV show.
You could, there are times when someone did it well.
But, i can't really imagine listening to Geralts internal monolog.
It's very hard to pull off tho, just watch the first dune movie
@@rinceoir3737 Geralt talking to himself could be done. Think of the "killing monster" trailer. It begins with his monologue
Yes. It's also awful lack of internal dialogue cause I've had some shows where the characters are just silent and I'm supposed to guess what the characters think. I end up not catching internal conflicts and changes. Internal dialogue to know what your characters are thinking, their thougt process. But if people abuse it just to info dump then at that point have a mysterious narrator above speak on their behalf.
The time element of the show confused me massively, and I know the whole last wish story by heart. Also, the depiction of Foltest annoyed me so much, hes one of the most cunning kings yet they depict him as a slob
That explanation of the happenings and Geralt's decisions just put soooo much weight to the title of the butcher of blaviken that everyone was yelling in the games.
Once you know the timeline, going back and rewatching it was really enjoyable, but there definitely felt like some parts of the story could have been slimmed down (a lot of the Ciri stuff), and some parts that need way more bulking. I think a lot of people, even non-readers or players like myself, would have been willing to sit through episodes that were double the length to accommodate that additional content.
Whats really impressed on me here is how much they should have used the short story episodes as character building blocks to help show the shaping of Geralts world view and characterisation, especially towards how he will behave as a parent having to teach those views to a child. It feels so often like they just hint at that idea or him constructing a moral code from these moments, but instead of building that characterisation, he just comes across as a constant nihilist.
I found my other problem was that the show seemed to being trying to impress the importance of certain character relationships to the audience, but without providing the plot to make the weight of those relationships seem realistic. For example, Geralt spends the entire first season remembering Renfri, but in the context of the show she just comes across as being a weird one-night stand that he ends up killing, so as a viewer it came across odd that he kept thinking of her. Or in the final episode we see that Triss and Yen are friends, but with no previous scenes to show that, I found it hard to care about what was happening to Triss in the battle of Sodden. Most egregiously, even though by the timeline Jaskier and Geralt traveled together for decades, I felt their character dynamic never changed from that first initial meeting, leaving it feeling like all the episodes with Jaskier happened over a very short period of time. By comparison his dynamic with Yennefer changed a lot from the Last Wish episode to the Golden Dragon episode, making it clear a fair amount of time had passed, while he had no change with Jaskier. I found those two differing paces of character dynamics really conflicted.
I think just overall, it came across like they wrote it with the expectation that most viewers would have already read the book or played one of the games, and so didn't do the leg work to write well crafted episodes. Still, I really enjoyed it, and I'm looking forward to season 2
Hey man...waiting for your vid "witcher s2...how to fail at adaption EVEN HARDER"
Much much harder.
When you explained the law of surprise and said he could actually get a puppy something deep inside me wished that would have happend
They could have just left the Ciri and Yen stuff for the second season... Spot on critique though...
EDIT: Just re-listened to "The Lesser Evil" short story and indeed it seems the show misses completely the whole point of the story.
Another point about the story that this essay didn't touch on is that in the short story Renfri is Snowhite. There's this thing in the lore of the witcher where popular folk stories exist in that universe and the folk stories that we know in real life are just sugar-coated stories about what 'really' happened.
Renfri's stepmother, the queen, sent her to the woods with a huntsman with the order to kill her. Only Renfri seduced this huntsman and killed him before he could do the same to her.
She lived with 7 gnomes and they were in a criminal gang. Later Stregabor and her stepmother tried to poison her with an apple.
This would have been my solution, personally.
So that we would have the same proplem the next season?
Eragon Shur'tugal no cause they wouldn’t need to introduce anyone and they can go straight to it all
I think even leaving Ciri out would've made for enough space.
I still think Yennefer's backstory should have been left for after we meet her. There's literally no reason for us to care for her before Geralt meets her. It's great that it's included and I love both young Yen and Istredd, but it could be in later seasons, explaining her character in retrospective rather that building on it straight up
Choosing the lesser evil.. somehow that makes me think of elections.
The elections are almost always like that. And in pretty much every country.
There is no lesser evil Tessian.
Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition's blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all.
@@alexsm3882 Only Evil and Greater Evil exist and beyond them, in the shadows, lurks True Evil. True Evil, Alex, is something you can barely imagine, even if you believe nothing can still surprise you. And sometimes True Evil seizes you by the throat and demands that you choose between it and another, slightly lesser, Evil.
@@alexsm3882 Greater evil - a candidate who will destroy a country in 2-5 years, lesser evil - a candidate who will destroy it in more than 10 or not at all.. Would you not prefer the second candidate to get elected?
@@rutessian you missed the point
I'm quite eager to hear your thoughts on the second season. Despite considerable production quality improvement, after watchin S2, I would stop calling it an adaptation. More like "loosely based on".
Exactly. Immediately upon watching the first episode knew “holy shit… they really fucked this one up”. They’ve ruined the story by just making up new shit. They’ve made the Game of Thrones mistake DESPITE HAVING JUST BEGUN THE FUCKING SOURCE MATERIAL!
@@factbeaglesarebest And still, I would consider E1 the best by far. The rest of S2 was way worse.
I wouldn't even call it that. Season 2 is so far off the mark, it might as well be a comic book-style alternate universe with no canonical connection to the source material other than character names. Watching that show, I couldn't think of a *single* scene that did not deviate from the events of the book. Usually in absurdly major ways.
It was a "let's milk another IP to death" from the very first episode of the first season on as is typical for Netflix.
I think "loosely based upon" is fine. The whole witcher expanded universe outside if book canon is "loosely based upon."
The show isn't nearly as bad as everyone raves on it for being. It's an ok show with an ok show budget
As a lover of the Witcher, while I feel the show fails as an adaption of the source material, it's charming enough to allow me to appreciate it for what it is. Also Cavill I feel embodies Geralt very well. In that respect I enjoy it
I really Loved this show. Yes, as an adaptation it fails. Its rough and rushed. But It has this tone to it. Everyone is very in it despite the at times ridiculous stuff. It feels like watching the 90`s and early 2000´s shows. Somewhat cheap and campy but a absolutely enjoyable watch. I think people get to hung up on the source material because it is JUST. THAT. GOOD. (Books and game adaptation)
The characters are really well played. Geralt and Jaskier are my favourite character team
@@theexchipmunk I know what you trying to say, that we shouldn't look at it as adaptation, but as it's own thing 🤔 but I just can't do that 😆 because I still can't stop think of it's potential.. And it's not like they didn't had the budget to recreate some stuff like in game of thrones. Just go to any slavic country like Slovakia Poland or Czech Republic and you will find there everything you need 😆
Do you people love witcher so much that it make you to defend even it's crappy version? 😆
@@kristiankopera You do know that I just put another point of view out? I am not defending it. I already stated that it has a lot of flaws. Obviously there could have been so much more. But if viewed from a different angle it can be very entertaining.
@@theexchipmunk I understand that, lot of people like it. So there must be something about I guess. For me it is terrible just because I was a huge fan of books and games since I was a kid, iam slavic and witcher with it's setting kind of brought me to our old traditions and pagan mythology.. Soo you have to understand iam upset that they didn't bring what i expected 😁 on the other hand, when I saw for instance the last Airbender (the movie) I enjoyed it and had no problem with it (even tho I know lot of people hate it) but I never seen original anime and never was into anime so I just saw it from different angle 😁
I hope you understand what iam talking about..
I haven't read the books, but honestly I didn't have any problems following along with the story. After hearing you explain the background of episode 1 with the info from the books, I agree that the book made for a better story. But I thought Geralts dream before the marketplace and Stregobors actions after Renfris job did a sufficient job to convey the message. I still understood why he went, and that choosing any evil is still evil and bad. So I understand your point and I agree to some extent, but as tv makes for a whole different medium I thought they did a good job of it anyway.
He's blatantly left out exposition the show gives in order to make a point as well. I do think that the book tells a better story but the disingenuous nature of this video honestly just rubs me the wrong way
I totally agree. Surely it might be confusing to someone but I personally had no problem understanding the story, and I think it was even better to not tell the audience everything word for word. That kind of storytelling rarely works in a tv show as it usually just makes you feel underestimated as a viewer, as if you needed an explanation for every scene. I find it much more entertaining to be confused for a moment and then realizing the facts myself.
To each their own and so on, but I think the show did a great job in leaving certain things for the viewer to figure out.
@@macgarymusic The point isn't understanding what is happening. What is happening is self evident., The thing is understading all the reasoning for the characters to act and react the way they're doing towards what is happening, which the show does a horrible job at conveying.
I first thought he went to the market because he fucked her the night before.
I was so annoyed by their campfire session, because it seemed like she wanted to manipulate Geralt to help her and then I was confused why he would stop her.
@@victorpresti but this is a common thing in not only books but tv as well. You don't/won't always know peoples motivation when it's happening. Especially with a medium like tv or books that span long periods of time. But you get the gist of what is going on. And as you learn more about the world and the characters you understand things more.
I only think this would be a fair criticism if the show
A) never expands on this or
B) it is nearly impossible to understand the show at it's current state without said background/motivations ect.
But the show didn't fall into the category
Ciri's storyline:
*Ciri running in the woods somehow stumbles upon someone.*
Random character: "Hey, wanna come with me?"
Ciri: "Sure."
Ciri: *Runs away*
Repeat this 7 times and you got Ciri's storyline.
But honestly the show was super entertaining. I can't believe the next season is coming out in over a year.
Isn't that basically her story-line in the books too?
I understand that they wanted to flesh out Ciri before she meets Geralt. But they could have done it when she was still in Cintra. We actually learn quite a lot about her in the books - e.g. that she was adventurous and kept running away and play with common folk in the streets (and she was great in blending in on the streets, stealing etc.). She was strong willed. She met Geralt or the first time in Brokilon when she was about 10, after she escaped a meeting with a prince Calathe wanted to arrange her to marry (Ciri decides then to leave the dryads and Geralt brings her back to Cintra). We learn that she was sporty - running, riding a horse, climbing walls, and skating (she defeated boys in skate jumping in Skellige - this is important for future plot, and all they did was have Ciri SAY it in a lame exposition when interrogating doppler-Mousesack about Skellige). Have her interact more with Calanthe, with Mousesack, with her peasant friends, with the court - and contrive her escape after Cintra's fall to 2-3 episodes at the maximum.
@@TheWampam Absolutely not.
If you read the books Sword of Destiny and The Last Wish, the show is total ass because in no way at did they improve upon the stories in the adaptations just made all of it worse. Changed characters and plots completely, it is an embarrassment to call this an adaptation. “But adaptations can’t be perfeCt” Watch them give Vilgefortz role to Stregobor or some random ass character and have Cahir killed off or some stupid shit lol that’s how bad it is
@@abcd-gn3nf you seem mad
17:56 - "The lesser evil is one of the more faithfully adapted story." while completely missing the point. Which speaks volumes about the show.
18:12 I don't know man, they still had time to make dick jokes, show Jaskier singing and being humiliated, have Calanthe whine about how the patriarchy forces her to marry off her daughter while she herself still behaves in a way you wouldn't expect a woman whose hands are tied by the patriarchy to behave, and so on. Or the fact that they showed the sacking of Cintra not once but twice, and probably patted themselves on the back with how cleverly they have handled the nonlinear timeline. The show's problem isn't just that they didn't have enough runtime, it's also what they chose to do with the time they had.
It's also worth noting that they wouldn't have the time issue or the timeline issue altogether if they hadn't dedicated 2/3 of the show to completely made up stories that either don't appear in the books or are conveyed through subtle hints in the source. This decision results in the complete waste that is Ciri's story line. At least Yennefer's actually serves a purpose for the most part, the exception being the bit with the assassin which is a complete waste of budget for a payoff that could have easily been handled with her other adventures and didn't need its own episode. The time that is freed up then could have been used to properly handle "A Question of Price".
Since the amount of cuts they made to the original material renders most of the adaptations pointless, they should have either a) lessened the number of short stories they adapted or b) merged a couple of short stories together to make a cohesive whole. For instance, the only purpose of adapting "The Edge of the World" appears to be introducing Geralt to Jaskier, seeing as they totally failed at the scoia'tael bit. They could have achieved the same thing by replacing the (made up) Triss bits from "Betrayer Moon" with Jaskier's intro in "Four Marks". That would have easily freed up an extra hour for them to dedicate to the other story threads.
The biggest crime to me, however, is how they have handled Nilfgaard and the Nilfgaardian characters. I can't for the life of me comprehend why they have decided to turn them into full-on evil, brain-washed, murder-happy suicide-bombers. It's not in any way, shape or form a result of runtime issues, or a result of something unfixable in the narrative/format. That's just how they have decided to present the story. It's a special crime to amazing characters like Cahir and Fringilla, and is probably going to fuck up Emhyr down the line too.
In the same vein, they have also fucked up Geralt's and Jaskier's relationship by turning Geralt into an abusive asshole who isn't beyond getting physically violent toward his supposed best friend. Why did they think that's ok? Is that supposed to be funny somehow? Is it supposed to make Geralt "morally grey"? Is it for the sake of drama? Why??? Even putting aside the books and looking at the show as its own thing, one has to ask why Jaskier would continue his friendship with someone like that, or why Geralt would keep someone around that he apparently feels nothing for other than continuous disdain and anger.
I don't have too much faith that the seasons moving forward would get better. If the issue was just time, the show probably would be safe since the reception of the first season almost guarantees that they will get more episodes per season. Unfortunately, almost all of the issues stem from the writing choices, and if GoT has shown us anything, it doesn't matter how good the actors are or how well-produced the show is. If the writing fails, everything else does. I hope I'm proven wrong and they get better, since I love the Witcher-verse very much.
Oh, and, I disagree with your assessment of what Sapkowski was trying to accomplish with The Lesser Evil. The moral of the story wasn't that "you should walk away," that's how he ended up getting those people killed. It was that "not choosing" is an illusion and it ends up helping the objectively more evil side (Stregebor). If Renfri was truly evil, she wouldn't have tried to negotiate with Stregebor and would've gone through with her murdering innocents plan. Hell, the only reason that she entertained that plan was because Geralt refused to do the right thing. Geralt basically missed the only window of opportunity for delivering justice by deciding to be holier than thou, and then messed up when he decided to finally do something because he assumed Renfri was as evil as Stregebor ("evil is evil").
Not gonna read all that
But I agree with you tho
Or I don't agree idk
I read the whole thing i actually agree with you on the part of Nilfgaard shown as Orc army from Lord of the Rings. Also, Ciri's plot was the most boring and unnecessary in my opinion. The first season should have been following only Geralt not even Yennifer.
I'm not reading that bro
You perfectly summed it up. It didnt help that they basically shat all over the description of the characters in the books either. Some characters look different, act different _and_ have a different role in the show aswell. Really makes you wonder why they even bothered to give them those names instead of making some new characters altogether.
LoTR did a great job of adaptation even with similar problems that the Witcher has.
Yes, the trilogy was done well, though from book 2 things started to go downhill.
@@g.strobl4458 downhill?
LoTR had 3 movies of 3+ hours each to work with lmao
@@Stuwi and they adapted the most important parts that translated well for the big screen very well
@@uzairahmed4197 there was very little they didnt adapt. Cant compare 50 minute episodes to a nearly 4 hour movie
Yes they had a really limited time to introduce the characters and stories. But why did they waste that time making up their own dumb shit instead of staying true to the source material as much as possible? No, it could have been much better even though they had limited time.
True, just cut all the mushy shit romance between Yen and Geralt, that was soo cringy, i didnt need that
@@stilloslachen6519 What? Yen and Geralt's Romance IS in the books lmao.
It would be better for this season, but skipping backstory completely would have to be reflected in future seasons, around time when that backstory is necessary for context. Skipping all out-of-scope content would make it a better season, but I don't know if it'd be better for series as a whole. For now - we can only wait and see if it'll pay off in the future.
I’ve never read the books but I enjoyed the series quite a lot and thought that I understood everything. But wow, yeah, now that you explained how the whole Renfri storyline went in the book I actually understand why people are so disappointed with the series
aye, another man spreading the good word. I’ll spread it further. If you haven’t read the books, you’re missing out
After almost a year, I finally find out why he had to kill Renfri... The show did not provide any context whatsoever for that..
No, the show just showed that she was set on killing him, and while he did not want to, he'd rather kill than be killed. There are several moments when he could kill her but chooses not to, until she finally makes it clear that she would never let go.
@@g.strobl4458 he butchered her team completely without reason as it turns out. He wanted to be a knight in shining armor, but turned out to be butcher. Book is muuuuuch better with that story
@@szafraniec8164 In the show, she gives him an ultimatum to join her in killing the sorcerer, or be against her. That's why he kills her men. Because they were very clearly going to kill him if he didn't choose to side with her. That's hardly "completely without reason"
@@perryuppal that is why it is poor writing if that is the story there is no lesser evil - the title of this adventure for gods sake. in show renfri is just evil, there is no choice at all and his actions are completely justified. that is why AS is the master of this world, he added so many layers, depth of characters and story we feel it in other books as well
@@szafraniec8164 they had 8 episodes and Renfri is a very unimportant part to the story they're trying to build. The only reason they even included her was to show that even when Geralt defends himself and sticks to his morals, he will always be the monster in everyone's eyes. It's not bad writing because they didn't do things exactly like the books
Wow. I have never read/watched/played any Witcher content, but this is seriously making me interested in the books. I didn't know The Witcher was so much about exploring morality
The books are really great, give them a try :)
It's all about morality when you break down the story. Pretty much every character is grey. In fact I can't actually think of any character that isn't grey.
The games (especially witcher 3) is also really good if you’re interested in morality because you just have to make so many hard decisions
I played through the games and STILL didn't understand what was going on, so I started reading the series. The show explains things terribly, if at all.
I definitely think you're right. When I was watching this with my husband I had read the last wish and he had not and I had to keep pausing the show to explain the characters motivations behind their choices. They definitely created a very confusing show.
Netflix: cuts out content for lack of time
Also Netflix: introduces pointless filler. Often politically-charged filler.
That's what annoys me so much - Not that they cut content because they hadn't enough time which would completly fine.
But because they cut content so this Gürl of Showrunner could twist the Stories to something more "American Political Correct"-like-thing.
How so?
@@DaroriDerEinzige Especially that Sapkowski's novels are quite politically correct! They are pro-feminist and anti-racist! The thing is the books don't try to shove it down your throat by force...
Like black elves and monologues about female oppression from powerful women?
@@Evija3000 Yeah, that angered me too! The queen talking about how women are so oppressed by men and can't do what they want to do WHILE being the most powerful person in the room and doing literaly all she wants, even if it's totally inaproppriate. Also historicaly, the queens couldn't choose who to marry not because female oppression, but because of politics and forming alliances. The kings had the same duty, so the message is also completely wrong.
I was waiting for this TV series with anticipation, but stopped watching after 3 episodes. The creators don't get the world. Geralt talks to kings like he's suicidal. The books create him as a badass warrior, but not invincible space marine. He can be killed(if he pisses off the wrong people, for example A FRIGGIN KING), he can starve to death (if he will not get contracts or people will choose to not pay him), he's vulnerable to many things that regular humans are.
The whole convoluted political aspect of this world is out the window also.
I'm not bothered by black elves or superman-witcher. I think the visual aspect is pretty spot on (ok, I dislike the casting choice for Yennefer, but I could live with that if the story would hold), but it all felt like an insult to one of the greatest written stories I've ever read.
Mmm, I see where you're coming from, they miss a lot, but I will say that the last half of the series is better than the first!
@@madel005 actually I personally would say the opposite, the writing gets worse as the show drags on and they mostly kept to the source material in the first few episodes as opposed to taking bigger liberties with adding and changing things later on in the season.
@@PassiveDreamer They fucked the magic system. If you read the books, at some point, Yen trains Ciri to use magic. She tells her how it works.
Book: Pull from a source then use. Use any spells, don't pull from fire.
Show: Use but lose your arms. Don't use fire spells, or you'll disintegrate.
To be fair Geralt is suicidal
@@Dragon-dk3jw no he was not. At some point in the books he looses it and goes against all odds. But it has been stated many times, that he perfectly well knows his place in the social relations of this world.