f13.net

Why aren't we talking about this?

Henry Cavill has been cast as Geralt!

That's actually not bad. They had better not fuck this up though.

Is this a joke ?  You mean Man of Steel Henry Cavill ? 

This is going to be Bright all over again, isn't it ?

I...I liked Bright.  Lots of people did.

But yeah, strange choice.

Steel is for man.
Silver for monsters.

Some guy made nice poster with him https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/08/07/bosslogic-henry-cavill-geralt-witcher-netflix/ (https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/08/07/bosslogic-henry-cavill-geralt-witcher-netflix/)

You've kinda made my point though ;  lots of people will like this, I'm sure.

Doesn't mean it's good.
 
 :why_so_serious:

Define "good".  Considering it's Witcher, I expect to see some amazing boobs from some of the female characters.  That's one form of "good".

Yes.  Yes, it is.  Especially if they cast Ciri correctly.

However, for this particular variance of good I would like seriously grappling of characterisation, locale and story, mature writing (and I mean mature not just 'hey our guys are grownup so there's a lot of rapey violence) and a plot that even remotely makes sense.

But that's just me and my initial demands.   :why_so_serious:

Also, I really, really can't see Hank in the role.  I dunno why, I know he can act when he has a good script and direction, but he doesn't fit the hole of Geralt in my mind.

It may end up being a great story, but I think tying it to The Witcher will do more harm than good.  Not hearing Geralt's voice will be particularly jarring.

A bit unrelated, but since I never admitted it in the proper thread:  I remember clearly when the casting for Wonder Woman came out and that tiny little waif Gal Gadot was the result.  I am pretty sure I expressed my general displeasure and it basically amounted to an argument that there was no way that fragile, small boobed little model girl was ever going to pull off WW.  Uh, I was not close to being right.  Irrespective of opinions of WW the movie itself, she was near perfectly cast in my mind.  Yum.

So, maybe Henry can manage it.  I have stopped trying to pretend I can predict such things.  They are actors, after all, this is what they do.

I understand that all too well.  There have been casting choices I've not been sure about in the past that were spot on.   I realise and admit that this may just be another one of those times.  But isn't really working in my head, even though I've since seen mock up pics posted around the net that show that physically it can work just fine.  I will also say I've been the guy in your shoes telling someone it'll be ok and it has been, so hey, maybe overreaction.

I just think Geralt really needs that world weary desperation that I'm not sure how it'll work.  But hey, bitching about stuff years out is what we do !

And, yeah, Gadot worked brilliantly and Heath worked brilliantly.  It's all about the material and direction and giving talented chaps some freedom, I guess.

Yeah, ultimately its the creative team in charge of the project I will worry about far more than any of the particular actors.  Seems to be the biggest driver of quality these days, especially these premium series.  The glaring quality differences between one episode of GoT and the next has really hammered that home.

Yeah. They have to get the material and the characters. If they do that, getting Cavill to play it right is the easy job, in relative terms.

Apparently certain people are freaking out that a casting call for Ciri calls for non-white actresses.

If there's one main character in the whole series that I would cast that way, it might be Ciri--Nilfgaard is an empire that conquers to the south as well as north, it's a pseudo-Rome, and could easily have folks of various racial/ethnic groups within it. Her dad has a pretty damn complicated individual history where it would not be hard to recast him too. (Though making the Nilfgaardian emperor non-white then puts the war with the North in a different and kind of unsavory light--these moves are never easy.)

I basically think it's fine--if they find the right person. Honestly they could also make the Elder Race racially diverse too, or otherwise mess with it. Doesn't matter if the casting is good.

Well, whatever they make Ciri they need to make Lara Dorren too so it does have implications for the Elves.  I guess I can understand that maybe they want to differentiate their fantasy from Tolkeinesque elves to show this is a different type of world and story.

Though I guess I worry a bit when you have source material this good and the people involved can't just make it as written.

When you're casting, I actually think it's great to open yourself as widely as possible rather than just stick to someone who is the absolutely perfect mirror of a character who has been depicted visually in another medium. There are limits--if you're doing a serious historical film and you cast Abraham Lincoln by picking a short, fat 20-something Asian actor while everyone else looks period-appropriate, that's not going to work.

There are people (hello) who know nothing about this game or its narrative and world.  They will need to GOT it like HBO did.  That means competent if unknown actors.

I assume this is a GOT series play?

I would think. Though it's a lot more intimate in scale simply because Geralt is always narratively at the heart of it. I do not want a Witcher series that's suddenly switching over to the detailed doings in Emhyr's court or whatever for half an episode. The best stuff in the books and the game are when Geralt gets caught up in dealing with a particular monster and discovering the darker psychological and historical secrets of people in a given community, or finding out which of the more powerful forces in his world are fucking things up for ordinary people in some way.

The issue is really two fold:

1) The creators said they intend to honor the source material
2) Ciri is described in the books as having pale skin, green eyes and ashen hair.

I think, for example, with that description they could go for say an Asian actress fairly easily. I also think if they'd put out a casting call for any actress of a certain age then the argument could be made that they simply chose the best actress for the job. By specifically going for a BAME (I think that's the acronym?) they have signalled that they are deliberating changing a character from the books which makes part 1 somewhat of a lie as it directly contradicts 2. Obviously an argument can be made that it's her storyline that is most important.

The more fascinating response to this has been from Polish people themselves. I don't pretend to know more than the basics of their history but my reading of it has basically been that they feel it's another example of people not giving a shit about the Polish.

I'm a bit iffy on it. I'm generally resistant to changing established characters. Especially if it is being done for what feels like political reasons as opposed to "(S)he was the best person who auditioned." That said, to echo the Henry Cavill talk above, I've been wrong about casting choices before going all the way back to "WTF? Michael Keaton as Batman? They hired Beetlejuice? I thought this was going to be a serious Batman movie???" so I could be totally wrong here.

Oh, this again.

Historical or Source Accuracy.  The last bastion of racist fucksticks everywhere.

It's even more hilarious when it's 'Accuracy in my fantasy world please'.

Just... Fuck Off.


(In general, not at anyone specifically writing here.)

I don’t have a dog in this race because I’ve played like the first 5 minutes of any of the Witcher games.  I know the Witcher games have bewbs though, so hiring a sufficiently hot actress that is not totally horrible to listen to is my only concern.   :awesome_for_real:

But, I can understand why specifically the poles are so mad.  This franchise becoming so internationally renown is a huge point of national pride for them (they literally gave Obama a copy of The Witcher 2 as his state gift when he visited), especially considering how much Europeans like to shit on them and throw racist stereotypes their way.  So its finally getting a big budget screen adaptation, and now Hollywood is doing the usual white washing of source material to conform to western marketing standards.  I mean, this sort of thing is common, but any major deviation from the source material by a foreign writer is going to be seen as an insult to them.

But hey, hot Asian chick with white hair is fine for me so whatever.

That part is complicated in a couple of ways, though. Sapkowski is himself kind of a curmudgeon--he rather infamously doesn't like the video games despite the fact that they are why his books are now selling well all over the planet rather than just in Poland. But also it's not as if the books are either explicitly set in a fantasy version of medieval Poland (medieval Poland has a really interesting political history, but it doesn't really match up with the map of kingdoms/states in the Witcher novels); and the books are also not exactly super-complimentary to most of the people in the fantasy world Sapkowski constructs. Geralt's an unambiguously heroic--if morally and emotionally complex--figure, but there aren't too many other characters like him in that sense. On the flip side, though, the monsters are never unambiguously monstrous. So this isn't like messing with a long-standing legend that is at the heart of a culture's own identity, say, as if I went off and cast a bunch of white people in the Sundiata epic or cast an all-Latino cast in the Iliad.

There's also the frequent pastiche/Easter egg references to tons of other fantasy in Sapkowski to consider--a decent number of the stories are subverting or poking fun at canonical fantasy characters and properties. I think that's another reason why messing with the look of some of it is fine.

The basic elements I think you have to have are:

Witchers as monster hunters for hire, who insist on getting paid.
Monsters as the result of human misdeeds of various kinds, where fighting them takes understanding their creation; where sometimes they can be negotiated with
Geralt as being a bit more willing than the average witcher to at least try talking it out with a monster, and as being a bit more inclined to take it out on the idiots that caused the monster's havoc
Geralt as being drawn into the complex politics of his world despite wanting nothing to do with it
The witchers as a dying order; witcher creation as morally repulsive
People generally being corrupt, greedy, etc. but also as being ambiguous/complex
Elves, dwarves as victims of human racism
Dandelion as being a pretentious but loveable sleazebag
Geralt being constantly drawn into sexual/romantic entanglements
Boobs
Ciri as important to a prophecy

Yeah, I'm not even going to pretend I have a full understanding of what ever crossovers there are in Witcher lore and Polish folklore.  But regardless of all that, they are very proud of about this, so having a foreigner make any big changes to it is going to get backlash.  Many British scream (justifiably) about how American studios change their shows/books around to adapt for American audiences, and this is basically that times 10 for them.  Even a small thing is going to get some resentment.  We all know that's probably the wrong attitude to take on this, since you really need some flexibility with screen adaptions, but there is understandably a lot of historical and cultural baggage coming in with this.  So I will at least grant they can be justifiably angry if they want.

As somebody who really prefers studios stick as faithfully as possible to source material, I can understand why some big fans of the books/games would be peeved about this.  But it should just be an annoyance for that group, not a huge issue.

Every other incel on the internet screaming about this thats not apart of those two groups can fuck off.

I'm just interested in whether the change is for all of Nilfgaard considering that

Personally... I don't care too much, so long as whatever actress they get is good at the role. That said, I generally prefer source materials being honoured (for example, I hated Scarlett Johansson being cast as the Major in Ghost in the Shell because not only was it a dumb instance of changing the source material but she's not that good of an actress -- not that it mattered in the end; the movie would have been trash regardless of casting). Casting a black actor (or other minority) comes off more as pandering in this instance than anything else, in my opinion.

Best opinion I've found on it, personally, is from here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJ24E9WX30 which notes that in this case the BAME casting call (which sparked the controversy) could likely be aimed as Polish/Slavic as the ethnic minority. She also points out some issues with casting Ciri as black within the racial demographics of the world and story consequences, as well as how it could be seen as reinforcing a stereotype regarding black fathers.

In the end, imo; follow source materials while getting the best actor/actress to play roles is the best way to go.

This is more or less where I am on this. It bugs me because they're deviating from the source material and don't even seem to be doing it for a good reason. That said I'm not going to rant and rave about boycotting the show or whatever I just find it annoying.

You guys may not know that Sapkowski has occasionally said that the games deviate from his books in ways that annoy him. Reading the books, I can see a few things that might be on his mind, (including the lack of his semi-postmodern tweaking of other fantasy narratives), but in many ways I think Witcher 2 and 3 are improvements on the source material. That's all I care about, really--make it better if you're going to change it. If that's saying, "We'll look at the widest field of possible cast members", I can't imagine objecting if the outcomes are good.

To my knowledge the biggest change is that the games take place after the final book and


So I can understand how he's unhappy. I've played the games and read the books and that's the most obvious thing that stands out to me other than some things like Triss feeling different in the game than she does in the book. A more prominent character for one thing.

That...seems like a rather large change.

Anybody who was inclined to worry can relax, Ciri and Yennifer have been cast, the actresses are white. The Queen of Cintra is so far the only non-white actor cast, so they're obviously holding open the general possibility, but all the main roles have gone to white actors and the producers have reassured fans that they're going to stick closely to the Slovak/Polish roots of the books/games.

Some fast summary
(https://scontent-frt3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/43582750_1876730575744835_2514459251636699136_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&oh=c6f02e7e9b4e52cac8d8bb0f17a2363d&oe=5C5C2D72)

Why is Yennefer, like, 9 ?

Or am I just old ?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/TfS8MAR9ucLHW/giphy.gif)

She is apparently 22, old man.

Fuck sake.

If anyone needs me, I'll be in the corner sobbing.

(That said, I still thought Yennefer would be older than that.)

And in books she use 20 years old body.

I held hope for Katie McGrath ("Merlin") as Yennefer 'til the end, but hey...We'll see how the 9 yrs old 22 yrs old will do.

Katie McGrath:
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/45/73/ec/4573ecf4f7217ac9b75baa748bc6b019.jpg)

Isn't she busy at the moment being eaten by dinosaurs and fighting alongside Supergirl though ?

Reasonable choice tho.

Again, I have not played the games so have no idea what the game characters look like beyond screenshots.  But this was posted up in an article as a comparison.

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/vmpamefntpkfgnoimosk.png)

Seems pretty reasonable to me.  So of course, from what I'm reading, the fandom is angrily losing its shit over the casting.

Considering they're casting Calanthe, this is also going to take place several years before the games.

Yup. People forget the game used this weird amnesia mechanic as a way to introduce you to the whole frame of the stories. Pull that back a ways and it's going to be surprising to anyone who has played the games but not read the books.

G-Geralt? Is that you?  :ye_gods:

https://twitter.com/netflix/status/1057640842201055232

Hair needs work. The eyes obviously come later through effects/contacts. I think the grim look needs a LOT of work.

I think they might as well also get the beard on him from the beginning, even if he didn't have it in that time frame, because Cavill's chin is really distracting.

Moar official casting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/9szcxm/netflix_announced_new_cast_members_joey_batey_as/

Highlights:

Anna Shaffer - Triss:

(https://i1.lisimg.com/11501901/280full.jpg)

Joey Batey - Jaskier (aka Dandelion):

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZGE0ZTgzZGQtMDc5NS00M2I4LTlhMTQtZmRjNGEzZjJmMDAwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDI1MzMzNTI@._V1_SY1000_SX800_AL_.jpg)

Eamon Farren - Cahir:

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY2OTg4MzI4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODUwNjgxNg@@._V1_.jpg)

That was a look of constipation if I ever saw one.

I'm having severe difficulty telling the guys apart, let alone the girls.

I'm just old...

Here we go, our three main protagonists (from showrunner Lauren S. Hissrich twitter feed):

Geralt (Henry Cavill):

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-ZcNQsWkAA3X1C.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-ZcNQrXoAE0QRW.jpg)

Yennefer (Anya Chalotra):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-ZazYzXsAAZL1o.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-ZazYyWwAI9QyF.jpg)

Ciri (Freya Allan):
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-ZbP_eXsAEyF-V.jpg)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D-ZbP_hWsAE240P.jpg)

Main poster:

Logo:

Ya, I can dig Caville's Geralt. I always thought of a movie viesrion as kinda a younger Timothy Dalton though, or maybe that guy who played Angel in Buffy. Caville is perfectly servicable, and we do know the guy can act. None of the Superman priblems were his fault, imo. So ya.

Not liking the look of the other 2 but we will see what they are like on screen.

Another piece of news: there will be an official panel (hopefully with a teaser trailer?) during the upcoming SDCC:

https://deadline.com/2019/07/netflix-the-witcher-the-dark-crystal-age-resistance-tcomic-con-hall-h-1202640167/

...And of course, already the Great Nerd Wars begun officially they have (err, whatever, Yoda).

-  Book fans vs Videgame fans ;
- "But...But there is only one swooooord on his back!" ;
- WTFIndianYenneferthat'sitIquit" ;
- Ciri older than Yennefer looks like my grandma ;
- OMG 2D wolf Medallion LOL .

Now we are talking!! (Roach/Płotka/Rutilia)  :heart:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_mgApdU4AY6gST.jpg)


The most "Witcher-ry" shot so far, no doubt  :drill:

Teaser trailer dropped at Comic-Con today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSqi-8kAMmM

Uh.  Ok.

Fuck Yes, Take My Money ?

I feel a bit of meh coming on. But I won't ignore it.

Wow, complete opposite here. Was meh to begin with but that teaser has me all in.

Damn  :awesome_for_real:

(https://i.redd.it/56nc3x1bsdb31.jpg)

So, a couple more items featuring the three main characters plus Lauren (the showrunner).

Interview on Entertainment Tonight (beware, VERY annoying interviewer):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XDtYWo9j2I&t

Much more bearable interview on Entertainment Weekly (it glitches and stutters toward the 5 min. mark and onward):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoafaaVXp1g&t=

This already spun a funny gif where Freya Allan (she's so shy and so adorable) and Henry Cavill look at each other: she's totally in love  :grin:


I found the trailer footage very interesting (The Dryads of...Brooklyn!  :why_so_serious:); like Lauren anticipated months ago, writers also put in scenes that were told off-screen in the books, like Yennefer's "origin story". As a whole, looks like S01 will tell some short stories from Book 1 and 2 while starting to lay the ground for the main saga (which starts with book 3, "Blood of the Elves").

I played about 10 hours of the first game, so I'm not completely ignorant, and I'm definitely the target audience for this. However, I was just left completely confused by that trailer.

However, it's Netflix, so I'll likely watch it at some point.

Just a reminder: series is completely based on the books (2 short stories volumes, 5 main saga books; then there is "Season of Storms", another collection of short stories Sapkowski published in 2013, totally unrelated to the games, but I still have to read it, don't know if they take place before/during/after the main saga). Videogames tell what happens after the main saga books. Sapkowski hates them, hates CD Projekt, hates everybody, but loves money.

The books are really great.

Yes they are, ma'am  :grin: . Some short stories are a tad chaotic and unevenly paced, but most are great; infact, I'm a bit bummed S01 won't include "A Grain of Truth" (Sapkowski hilarious and brlliant version of "Beauty and the Beast"), but hey....
----

More fluff:

Allan and Chalotra:

Full Comic-Con panel (minus the standalone clips, unfortunately):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLZms_s8SEc

By the way, as you might know, Cavill is a huge, huge fan of the franchise; read all the books, played all the games long before the series conception.

It is very much a 'book chap' trailer.

I liked it a lot and I hate Man of Steel Man.

I dig Cavill - I think he's a better actor than he's given credit for mainly because he's been stuck in roles that don't let him act, with directors that are overbearing twats or are Guy Ritchie. The trailer just left me confused as to the story and its visuals seem to be aimed mostly at tweaking fantasy fans visual cues without any context to make them meaningful. Not to shit on this trailer too much since that seems to be the fucking thing in trailers now.

Where's he acted ?  Seriously, I don't know.  I watched the Mission Impossible shite and the Superman shite and he was awful, but they were awful films.  I watched UNCLE and I thought he was ok in that, but it wasn't exactly stretching for any actor, I don't think.

That's the sum total of my experience, so I'm probably just missing something.  Hope you're right because I really want Witcher to work (and trailer has me jazzed).

And Yeah, as I said, it seems to be a trailer for Book Chaps ;  there's a lot in there that points at things the average person won't know or care about. 

It's a teaser not a trailer.

Anything longer than a minute is not a fucking teaser, IMO, and Hollywood needs to stop acting like it is.

We'll form a better opinion after the full-fledged trailer, probably out around october (if they'll eventually confirm the release for the pre-christmas days).

By comparison, here's the first Game of Thrones full trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpJYNVhGf1s

For example, comparing it to the Witcher teaser, notice how slower paced  the GOT one was, while the latter tried to cram the three main characters "origins" and motivations in between action sequences, off-screen narrator babbling, with ye olde third party hollywood music (yeah, of course that wasn't from the eventual soundtrack).

EDIT: Btw, no surprise, but it is safe to say the books will receive a nice boost even just after this first trailer: I  checked on Amazon US and "The Last Wish" E-book is n.1 in the genre category, #121 overall (#30 in the books category).

That teaser was crap. The show will be crap.

But I hope I'm wrong.

That's exactly what I mean. Teaser trailer's now just seem to think they can parade around some wide expanses, some character shots and a few cryptic bits of dialogue, and Bob's your uncle. No, fuck that. Teaser or not, tell me a story, give me a narrative or at least the start of a narrative. The Witcher one said something about elves and monsters and I don't even have the vaguest notion how any of it fits together. The Watchmen trailer that just got put out recently did the same goddamn thing, and I am intimately familiar with its backstory.

The closest thing to a name involved in this is Cavill, whose acting ranges from bad to "well I guess he wasn't the problem with this movie". Also every time I see him with the long hair in this trailer it looks like they de-aged Fabio to play Geralt.

That, or Legolas has been through some serious shit, lately....

(https://i.redd.it/caj68tvyzob31.jpg)

I'm cautiously optimistic for this one. Cavill is a huge fan and actively lobbied for the role. Having an actor that committed is going to help things. The show runner did Daredevil and the Umbrella Academy but she also did the Defenders which I've heard wasn't very good. (I never got around to watching it.)

I think Ciri is a bit too old for the time period its set in and I'm wondering if they changed her relationship to Geralt. The trailer implies he has no idea who she is but...


Also, the showrunner has said there won't be a main villain but

Specifically, she was a producer on Season 2 of Daredevil and wrote 3 of the episodes that season (more of the Elektra focused episodes rather than the Punisher stuff, so basically the low point of the series for me).

The Defenders was fine. The only issue I had with it was Iron Fist but that was because his show wasn't that good.

I'm familiar with game Witcher but I always thought that Ciri was partially raised by Gerlat for an unknown reason.

Looks like it has potentially, I am suddenly optimistic. 

This looks ok. I have the flix anyway, so we know we're gonna watch it.

I felt the Defenders was pretty weak, but I strongly dislike Jessica Jones. Also, the defenders are Dr Strange, Valkyrie, Gargoyle, Son of Satan and folks like that.  :why_so_serious: I felt the flix team was like a Team-Up issue with Heroes for Hire and Daredevil, with some c-rate 90s angster thrown in for the kids.

Actually the amount of angsty bullshit is so high in all the flix Marvel stuff, it's obnoxious. I hope the trend of angsty grimdark can go away at some point, when the millennials get out of their teens in 30 or 40 years.

That said, it works for the Witcher, so no problems there  :drillf:

I can’t get over the one sword vs two.  Two is the iconic look of the character so I don’t know why they changed it.

How hard is it to say "one sword for monsters, one sword for idiots". Granted there is a theory that book Geralt keeps the silver sword of roach (his horse).

Not to mention it can play a great dramatic agent.

Geralt approaches the old crone...and draws the silver...

I'm in but if they wanted me to feel a strong connection to it they would have fixed the medallion and given him two fucking swords idk. I'm not hyped but I want it to be good & I think it can be executed well so they picked a good IP in that regard.

Wait, what are you all seeing that says he doesn't have two swords?

There is nothing that says/shows he won't have two swords. People are just complaining that the pictures so far only show one sword. The showrunner has even essentially tweeted out twice that the second sword is in the show.

I based this on the pictures with only one sword.  So if they are going to fix it:  excellent!

Yeah, he has the second sword. Unlike in the games, however, in the books he generally keeps the silver sword on Roach, as he only uses it when absolutely necessary.

A lot of gripes thrown at the show based on what we've seen of it are often actually just due to them pulling more from the books than the games (which makes sense given the author's involvement in the show and his absolutely raging hatred of the games [the guy is a fucking idiot on this stance -- he actually claims the games are only popular because of the popularity of his books, when anyone with a brain knows that outside of the niche market that is that region... everyone knows of books solely due to the games] and games as a whole).

There are some things being changed, however, mainly to make things more inclusive, that technically go against the books and the lore of the world, but so long as the product is fine only idiots will whine about that sort of stuff.

The scrotum armour is hilariously bad, though.

What Ceryse said, all of it  :grin: . In the books, Silver Sword is usually on Roach, end of the story, really. Showrunner and Cavill definitely love the games, but they also met (especially the former) Sapkowski quite often during the shooting. You get the sense that talking openly about the videogames is a bit of a minefield for them.

(https://i.redd.it/x5jowvto8ob31.png)

They don't need to adapt the games, but it is pants-on-head stupid if they do not understand where they main appeal comes from and keep it in account.  The games.

Using the current example, the reason to have him wear the second sword is A) because it obviously looks cooler, and B) because that's how most of their likely fan base would expect to see it.

Yeah, yeah, I get it, but I think that, already in the discussion forums of the games, just for the sake of it, there were recurrent topics about how "realistic" (as realistic a "fantasy" might get) would it be for a person to actually carry two swords like Geralt does in terms of balace and practicality while fighting, for example. In other words, sure, CDP depicted the character like that because it is surely spectacular, but perhaps you don't really want two swords on your back (even Geralt with his "superhuman" senses and traits) if you adopt the fighting style Geralt does.

That's another way too look at it.

Yeah, I thought of the same thing, being an expert pretend swordsman myself.  But what was a valid discussion when going from books to games does not automatically make a good discussion when going from games to tv show.  Especially as the latter two are visual, so the apples to apples comparisons are more obvious.  I mean, first thing we look for in the casting of Geralt is "hmm, does Cavill look enough like what video game Geralt looks like?  Hmmm."  We wring our hands, and then we see the trailer and say "yep, job well done chaps, that's one thing checked off the list".  And similarly, whinging about how the female leads may or may not match up to our expectations as compared to their video game counterparts.  

That said, they don't have to get it all just right, I am not advocating that at all.  I merely suggest that dogmatic adherence to the books would be retarded.  I bet most people who played Witcher have absolutely no idea that there are books.  I didn't, and I am nerdier by far than the average potential viewer of this thing.  This isn't like GoT.

Well, the author can feel however he wants and in the end fighting against the popularity of your IP is when principles meet stubborn ignorance. At least GRRM's books were popular before GoT went to tv. I'd never heard of the Witcher before the games and I've worked in a library for 20 years. I couldn't tell you the author's name, still. (fake edit: I can because I was giving my fiancee (our fic lib) a heads up and we already have the series, so I guess now I'm going to finally read it lol)

Let me put it another way: I'm far more interested in Cyberpunk 2077 than this tv show.

Well for all intent and purposes the games are set after the books. The games are quality fanfiction that draw in a big audience despite being a obscure PC game for years (I've only played the witcher 3 and bought the last two games on a steam sale). They can easily adapt the current series of books and adapt the game later. Which works out because Geralt was pushing 40-60 in the games and quite noticeable more grey wolf than white wolf.

If I remember the story correctly, when the author licensed the game to CDPR, he took more cash upfront instead of royalties, despite the company trying to convince him that the royalties were the better option.  Years later, that was obviously a dumb move, so I think the author's hatred of the games is a combination of bitterness and old man yelling at clouds.  I'm a big fantasy nerd, and I had barely heard of the books before the first game.  Outside of Poland, they were pretty niche, and now they're known worldwide.  

Either way, I look forward to the show, and anticipate being cranky when Netflix cancels it too soon once the show contracts make it more expensive to do the later seasons.  

Always take royalties if you're an IP holder. My lord, the business sense on creatives drives me crazy sometimes.

Yeah, it is a fairly well known story now; when CDPR went to him he demanded cash up-front instead of a percentage of profits because he never thought the games would do well because, to him, games cannot be a creative medium of note, period. The games (even the first one did well) did pretty well and the third game just raked it in. The author started to get really pissed off whenever people asked him if the books were based on the games (an understandable annoyance, to be fair), or when he saw in other regions Geralt from the games was put on the covers of his books. He ended up suing CDPR for money due to the success of the games (and CDPR settled with him giving him a bunch of money -- and based on Polish law he likely would have won anyway). He has on numerous occasions ranted and raved about his hatred for the games in particular and gaming in general (even before he made his original deal with CDPR he was apparently very anti-video game).

Apparently even the author of the Metro series of books has called him out for being a fuckmuppet who can't recognize reality, since he continues to claim the popularity of the books is the only reason the games sold well. And, sure, good source material helps.. but anyone who thinks the books even remotely approach the games in terms of popularity is absolutely fucking insane. The games are the only reason the author's name escaped the region for all but the smallest of numbers.

Sapkowski comes off like a general all-purpose asshole in everything I've read about him.

The games really are not "quality fanfiction"--I think in certain ways #3 is both a great distillation of the books and a better continuation of them. The books are good; the games are extremely continuous with them and respectful of the IP in a way that's unusual in gaming. That he doesn't get this is not to his credit.

Nope. They were known in Europe.

True that.

Also, some of you are fucking mental.

Also, the author is a complete cunt.  This is known.

Ah, apologies.  When I was trying to find English translations back when the first game came out, I was told otherwise. 

Hmm, so and so, depends on which country: honestly, during the nineties or the early '00, I often went to my local libraries: lots of Katharine Kerr, Morgan Llywelyn, Stephen Lawhead, Zimmer Bradley, Jordan, Gemmell and other "usual suspects"...But Sapkowski? Unfortunately, here in Italy they started translating his books after the second game.

I'm not saying that it was spread across but middle and east. If I remember Germany also. English translation was late. Poland was also just getting started after soviet...

Yeah, unless you are living in a hovel and about to starve, always take less money up front if they offer you a piece of the backend. I'd rather be getting 100 checks for $100 over the next 60 months than get $3000 up front and watch my creation pay the mortgage on someone else's summer home.

I only say quality fan fiction as respect to the author. The Witcher 3 is basically my version of the Geralt and his world and I probably never read the books if it wasn't for the netflix series.

If you never read the books, and want to quickly skip to the main saga (book 3 to 7), first read the following short stories from Book 1 and 2:

Book 1:

- "The Witcher" (basically the full version of Witcher 1's original intro)
- "A Question of Price" (very VERY important in the grand scheme of things)
- "The Last Wish" (Geralt meets Yennefer for the first time, under peculiar circumstances)

Book 2:
- "The Sword of Destiny" (you could consider it a sequel to "A question of price". And...Hello Ciri!)
- "Something More" (again a sequel of the "sword of destiny").

That way, you strip down book 1 from 7 to 3 stories, Book 2 from 6 to 2 ; yes,  two or three more stories also feature Geralt and Yennefer (not to mention Jaskier/Dandelion), but they're not as fundamental (but of course you get a bit more in-depth about their relationship).

VERY honorable mentions: like I wrote a few messages ago, "A Grain of Truth" from Book 1; then, "A Little Sacrifice" from Book 2 which is maybe the best fantasy short story I've ever read (beside the marvelous ending, the whole story has almost a "lovecraftian" vibe to it).
------------------------
Final mention: first episode of the TV series should begin with the short story from Book 1 called "The Lesser Evil" (Renfri kicks ass).

Only reason I knew about the Books was that my copy of the first Witcher game was a "Special edition" that came with a copy of "The Witcher" short story. I have to say it was a very good read.

Like almost everyone on the planet I played the games before I read the books. However, saying the games is quality fanfiction really is fitting in a way since:

I've always thought

It is.

Full trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndl1W4ltcmg


I think it looks pretty good.

Trailer makes it look better than I expected. 

Looks good to me.  Looking forward to December 20th!

Is this one of those where they will dump a whole season on us?

Yeah, 8 episodes all at once.

Looks awesome.  Much better than I expected.

Yeah, I'm pleasantly surprised at how good it looks. And sounds--Cavill seems to me to have settled into Geralt very nicely.

New official photos of Anya Chalotra as Yennefer  :heart: :heart:

Renewed for Season 2 ! (personally, I found S1 really enjoyable)  :why_so_serious:

https://twitter.com/witchernetflix/status/1194662873869496320

(https://i.imgur.com/pA8sQ4i.png)

Netflix must have a lot of confidence in this.

Yep, that sounds encouraging; for now it's also a matter of metrics: thanks to the already established fanbase, both trailers have a huge amount of visualizations, which builds hype etc.

Regarding the potential new viewership, some will be turned off by the greater amount of magics & monsters compared to GoT (writers already mentioned there's going to be a lot of magic involved, and you know how it goes: court intrigues & sex = adult and serious ; magic & monsters = kids and immature stuff for manchilds only),  but much depends on how each episode will flow, of course.

Well, both the Witcher novels and games have court intrigue and sex. So maybe it'll lure in people who like that too.

Best of both worlds, really!  :drill: :grin:

Nice to see how two different media captured the atmosphere from the books (new photos):

(https://i.redd.it/wcjfas25tpy31.jpg)

(https://i.redd.it/5ife1d1rvly31.jpg)


Witcher 4 looking great. Dat Raytracing  :drill:
(https://i.redd.it/x6pebtxg8by31.jpg)

14 days to go.

Among exclusive premieres with the cast in attendance, interviews etc. ,  today Indiewire published an interview (or rather, part of the full one which is going to be published on Dec. 20th) with the OST creators, Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli:

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/12/the-witcher-song-premieres-exclusive-1202194676/



'Lo and behold, we also get to listen to two pieces from the series for the first time ever (TV series won't have a standalone title track/intro)!

"Geralt of Rivia":
https://soundcloud.com/giona_ostinelli/geralt-of-rivia

"Toss a Coin to your Witcher":
https://soundcloud.com/giona_ostinelli/toss-a-coin-to-your-witcher
---

For those among us who played the games, first one is definitely "witcher-y", there is actually a hint of the "Geralt" theme from the games, although the creators insisted on the fact they never looked into the music from the games while creating their own thing.

Second one is sung by Joey Batey, who actually plays Jaskier (Dandelion) in the tv series; it's catchy and very well done, IMO (and apparently it should be performed by the actor during an episode.

Actually, it does have a title track. Geralt of Rivia is the title track. The only thing they said is it'll change sometimes to set the tone for the episode.


I'm not sure what to think of that song. It's good but feels almost...90s fantasy in a way I can't quite put my finger on.

Character introduction: Geralt (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LiD3i9DS_c)

...And Yennefer (lots of spoilers about her past/background):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZDPuYeQQNM


...And Ciri:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQPxD-GbF2c


We already knew Cavill is obviously invested in the character, but DAMN, Anya Chalotra is INTENSE as Yennefer of Vengerberg. Whoa.

P.S. Finally a glimpse of Joey Batey as Jaskier  :awesome_for_real:

Yeah, this is shaping up to be pretty darn interesting. Looks like the Flix gets another reprieve in the post-Disney+ world...

Final trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb90gqGYP9c

I keep thinking "shit, this is like releasing today or tomorrow!" only to find out that it totally isn't and then I get annoyed.  For no reason, have tons of other shit I have to get through.

There was a front of warm, moist air developing as the fiancee saw the most recent teaser...Cavill reading from The Last Wish :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUST_IQYp-o

Well, he makes ME moist and I consider myself straight, so.... :why_so_serious:

Is Netflix screwing with Disney?  Dropping this on the same day TRoS starts?  You have to guess some genre folks will be binging this instead of going to the theaters.

Some. Enough to make the difference between an ant fart and a hurricane? No.

Why would they conflict with each other?  It's not like either is only going to be available for that day only and people won't be able to just watch on their TVs whenever for the Witcher or goto the theater after the opening day rush is past.

I am genuinely excited for this, which means it will be a giant disappointment. Sorry, everyone.

It’s the opening weekend that Disney wants to go well.  After that word of mouth might kill it in its tracks.  It will be interesting to see how it goes.

TRoS tickets went on sale before the release date was officially announced I think. I think they were on sale a full month before we got the trailer that officially gave us the release date.

Season 1 releases worldwide in about 9 hours, wherever you live.

Doug Cockle, who dubs Geralt in the english version of the games, is ready too, already fighting...monsters!  :heart: :drill:

https://twitter.com/DCockle/status/1207725668995358720

Meanwhile, yesterday at the polish premiere in Warsaw, Freya Allan (Ciri) 's dress tried to devour her (seriously, what was THAT?!):

(https://i.redd.it/vcv0u7vapg541.png)


They're all gorgeous anyway  :awesome_for_real: :awesome_for_real:

Remember when I told you about the attitude you might notice for some reviewers, considering how much more "fantasy" this show is compared to Game of Thrones?

No? Oh, ok. Anyway  :grin:

Review on EW.com:
https://ew.com/tv-reviews/2019/12/20/netflix-the-witcher-review/

Review on The Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/dec/20/the-witcher-review-netflix-henry-cavill


Notice any similarities? Yeah, exactly.
----

Anyway, looks like, beside these two, show is getting quite a lot of praise, with all its shortcomings (I'm sure there are, that's not the point; still have to find some time to start watching it), somewhat dubious VFX etc.

I can’t imagine this series will be any higher quality than those two reviews.

I enjoyed the first two episodes quite a bit. I don't have a major stake in the franchise; played some of all three games and read a book's worth of stories.

The wife enjoyed it, too.

finished it.

i guess you have to decide if the show was done bravely or poorly. there is zero babysitting or hand holding for normies that can't just accept they don't know wtf is going on and roll with it. in my mind that's either through bravery or incompetence, probably the latter but it made for a much more enjoyable watch so i'm not complaining. kinda funny unintentional homage to the jank of the first game i guess.

i won't pretend i know what its like to go into a show that was quite confusing in its build up without the sketchy broad strokes knowledge i had from playing 1&2 and just generally knowing who/what Geralt is.

IF this is a big success for Netflix and i certainly hope it is then perhaps i may be in for another decade of feeling like i'm squarely in the target audience.

someone should make a quick little refresher on some of the kingdoms and put it in spoilers for people that need a bit of help probably. i would but im drained and i need to feed the cat and im lazy.

Ok, first of all, let me help a bit with the geography (no spoilers)

Reminder: the author never commissioned a map for his books, because he wanted to make you feel a sense of fabled displacement or something, not giving you an exact picture of what happened where, in line with the short stories atmosphere, that is more akin to the old ones by Andersen and others.

Nonsense? Yeah, probably, but hey, that's Sapkowski for ya  :why_so_serious:
----------------------------

Anyway, a few years into the books (1990-1999), amateur artists started to draw maps indipendently. Here's a very straightforward one:

https://i.redd.it/f4x7oeqkr0721.png

Basically, at the beginning of our story, everything below Cintra/Sodden is already under the influence of the Nilfgaard empire, which now wants to conquer the remaining, northern lands...Or is that their main objective? (Toussaint is a whole other thing, ignore it for now).

Of utmost importance, especially later in the saga, are the nations of Temeria and Redania (and Cintra, of course).

That's all you need to know, for now.
--------

Now, VERY IMPORTANT regarding the TV series:

The showrunner and the writers took a big decision: in the books, everything is narrated through the eyes of Geralt, we meet all the protagonists through him. In the TV series, there are 3 POV and 3 different timelines which is currently (and rightfully so) confusing both the viewership and reviewers.

Geralt point of view skip forward and backwards through his "monster of the week" story; Yennefer is the one that gets you backward the most compared to the other two; Ciri is always the "present" timeline. They could have portrayed that better, that's for sure.

Now, it's easier to tolerate this jumping around for those of us who read the books because, in S2, at least in the middle (if not sooner), everything should get sorted out. But of course, not knowing that will turn off some and even get negative reviews for bad writing and planning.

Hopefully we'll get more episodes in subsequent seasons.

Saw the first episode last night, it was great. Between this and the Mandalorian, it's a phenomenal time to be into scifi/fantasy.

Ironically at a point in time where the people who dislike scifi/fantasy the most are scifi/fantasy fans  :why_so_serious:

Yeah, I didn't get that the three viewpoints were not contemporaneous "Real Time" until Yennefer started talking about having spent 30 years on palace intrigues. Basically everything in her story before the drunken mind-controlled orgy was happening before everything in Geralt's viewpoint to that point, and *all* of both is apparently set well before Ciri's events.

--Dave

Watched first 3 last night. I read one of the books (I think the one that had the striga princess, since that felt very familiar), and haven't played the games. I am still a bit lost on lore and geography/politics, but I am enjoying the hell out of the show.

They *really* needed to tell viewers about the different time frames but ok, it's otherwise surprisingly good.
 

They do tell the viewers but its subtle. They often mention kings and events of various kingdoms and its always different. The first time we meet ciri we see that her grandmother is the lion of cintra and her winning her first battle is mentioned in yennifers story. Similarly every time they talk about Nilfguard it has a different king etc etc.

Its also one of the things i most liked. It let them weave the themes together in reinforcing/contrasting ways that would not have been possible if being faithful to chronology

I was expecting this to be shit. I tried and failed many times to enjoy Witcher 3 but it just didn't gel with me and neither did the world. I don't relate to Geralt at all. Netflix shows have done nothing for me lately.

It opened with a shitty monster fight. It proceeded to a shitty wizard illusion house. Then it went to the epic fall of Cintra and I was massively on board. It got cool. Trying to find time to get beyond episode 2 between baby-wrangling.

I binged it all and quite enjoyed it. I was a few episodes in before I realized the timelines weren't synced. I've read all the books and played all the games so I should have known this but it just didn't click with me. I don't think they even sync until probably the 6th or 7th episode. I have mixed feelings about how they handled the time jumps. I mean, sometimes little title cards with "30 years ago in castle blahblah" feel lazy but with all this jumping around with characters and places that viewers don't know it could easily be very confusing and probably is to a lot of viewers.

I think the second season will be much easier to follow as it should get into much more straight forward stories. They've covered most of the short stories now and united Geralt and Ciri so we can hopefully get to the meat of the stories.

My 60 something yr old father managed to sort out the time skips. The only one that messed him up was the  so it is possible.  :drill:

He also binged this in two days without me even having time to encourage him to check it out. Hopefully this puts up huge numbers (because its great and I want more AND because I hope they keep releasing shows all at once), reviewers were not kind but I notice that more recent reviews are all coming in much more positive because reviewers are completely full of shit always.

You said it best, Hoax: this show is almost adorable in its moments of jankyness; just like playing a Gothic game, or trying to sort out the plot of a Divinity one with their often questionable dialogue flows  :awesome_for_real:
----------
It's more akin to the  atmospheres potrayed by Willow, Princess Bride or Nevending Story (with a bit of added violence and tits  :drill:) than the impeccable "packages" provided by your nowadays Game of Thrones, Westworld and whatnot. And it should be watched with that in mind, IMO (of course, with all the offer available now, you could say "I prefer something with higher production values", sure)

There are flaws, mostly due to the fact that the showrunner (she admitted it herself) is a total neophyte in her role (she was just a writer before), and the rest of the writers looks very young as well. Like Riggswolfe said, book 3-7 should really help with the flow, but of course critics and reviewers in general have to write about what they're currently watching, "potential" doesn't matter.

Anyways, Cavill, Chalotra and Allan are really, really good, especially considering is basically a debut for both women.

I think they took a big risk the way they structured it, but managed to Rule of Cool their way past the jankiness enough that people will look forward to future seasons that aren't so damned "What the fuck is actually happening here?"

--Dave

I'm two episodes into this and I have no fucking idea what is even going on.

Really enjoyed this. I think Cavill nailed Geralt which was the most important positive. Finished Witcher 1 a few years back and made it a bit into Witcher 2 before I stopped. Inspired now to go reinstall and finish the games.

(https://i.imgur.com/ecpZHpN.png)

I was thinking more of a really high budget Xena.

Just finished binging this and, while I enjoyed the games, thoroughly enjoyed the series and bought the first book. It doesn't let the reader down at all.

Far better than GoT and the last season of WW, Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri were spot on and only Triss feels underdeveloped as a character. The fall of Cintra was good viewing and I actually enjoyed the time skips not being telegraphed. It took me back to S1 of WW.

from Marc Jobst(director on The Witcher, among other things) twitter feed,  a gory BTS photo; good old prosthetics  :drill: :drill:   :awesome_for_real::


https://twitter.com/marcjobst1/status/1209450637961891840

They were explicitly telegraphed if you had CC on, otherwise it was easy to miss. Also they did not bother ageing up the characters that should have aged (the bard and the queen and her husband), which is kinda cheating to be honest. Either way those are just minor complaints in an otherwise very entertaining show.

They did age the queen and her husband a bit but it was super subtle. I think the times we see them it's only about 12 years apart so they didn't need to age a great deal.  As for the bard, yeah, we get a line about his crow's feet but he still looks about 20.

So, the "Toss a Coin to your Witcher" song is rapidly gaining huge popularity on YT (it's VERY catchy, they totally hit the mark with that) with your usual quota of memes, covers and whatnot.

Unfortunately though, I just listened to the Japanese version and, beside the fact it's sounding like it's straight out of "Fist of the North Star" or something, it's horrendously and hilariously off-key.

Here it is, FEAST YOUR EARS, AND DESPAIR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZZZGy8XTkM

 :ye_gods: :ye_gods:

The song is great, I hope we get more Jaskier.

Finished season and had a great time.

makes one wonder which language has the best version, I was thinking the same sort of thoughts during final credits of final Mandalorian, wonder what the VA's sound like in all these languages.

The Internet is here to serve, good sir (15 languages):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uwbjC_8Nd0 (first comment has the timestamps)

Talking about my language, italian is not bad, considering that, unlike Joey Batey (the actor playing Jaskier), our dubber, Alessio Puccio (italian voice of Harry Potter in all the movies), has no singing background (but I guess that's true for all/the majority of Jaskier's dubbers).

Anyway, as usual polish takes the cake  :awesome_for_real: (just like the games, I'm watching it in polish with italian subtitles  :drill:). Czech is awesome too.
----------------


EDIT: Ah, one last thing, in polish, Geralt is dubbed by Michał Żebrowski (he does an awesome job, IMO). Who is Michał Żebrowski, you might ask? It's the actor who played the original, polish adaptation of the books, called "The Hexer", in 2002:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYsvywkzuo

Random  :grin: :grin: :awesome_for_real:

(https://i.imgur.com/HXPhQNr.jpg)

thanks for link.

no offense to anyone:
-man Czech is foreign and unpleasant to my ears
-german in charge of being german i knew what i was going to get the cadence is rekt by a bunch of words that are 20 letters too long
-Gerralt de Rivia (spanish) lol. its a huge step down from Hexa to Bruj that's for sure
-The non-european spanish seems like better singer to me than EU spanish un moneyda though... no great
-French not bad, though Ciri sounded way older maybe? i was in the other room.
-Hindi, I'm sorry but what the fuck is Geralt's voice. Hindi is working for me oddly sounds better as sung poetry/spoken word I guess? Wouldn't surprise me if the VA has done more singing though
-apparently i've never heard Hungarian in my life. kinda nice.

Watched the first four episodes. This sucks a lot less than I thought it would.

Supercut of every time Geralt says "fuck"! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5pnYyYs_k)

Here, have some sorceresses :heart: :awesome_for_real:   (BTS photo...slightly NSFW, but not really. Just in case) 


Meme factory for this show might become endless with the addition of the whole gaming community:

(https://i.redd.it/j15ynpzm7h741.jpg)

Watched it all, loved it. Very happy to watch something that didn't hold my hand. Less confusing than Legion, which we also enjoyed. Figuring out the timelines was fun. Lots of clues, in hindsight. Things that seemed throwaway initially were often at least referenced if not important, which tied the whole thong together more tightly than perhaps otherwise.

This was excellent.

The irony of some reviewers making for of the fantasy names and trips in this when Mandalorian is out at the same time and getting praised is rather amusing.

The Mandalorian is from a setting that the general public has known for 40+ years. The Witcher is known to gamers and those who've read the books, which in the U.S. is mostly gamers again. It's a big difference. GoT had lots of names too but eased us into it a bit smoother especially since the first season's narrative is very linear and focuses mostly on the Starks.

I suppose I cant be the only person who noticed that Geralts sword looks like it has a  :awesome_for_real: on it.

That  :awesome_for_real:   is

Just binged this.  It was great.  I've never played any the games (well, more than 10 minutes before deciding I'd come back to it later, and not) or read the books.

Show was perfect in revealing the lore on it's own terms, and it made watching it all the more fun.  The acting was great, and I'm really looking forward to next season.

Finally got around to watching this over the weekend with some friends.

It's not super deep, but it was a ton of fun, which is what I want from this kind of thing.  Also, that 'Toss a Coin to Your Witcher' song is a goddamned earworm.

The only thing that annoyed me was Cavill's Batman voice, but I stopped caring after ten minutes.  I'm glad a second season is already on order.

It's fun. I don't know quite why people find the temporal relationships between the main characters' storylines quite so confusing.

Cavill is really good in the role.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the average viewer.   :awesome_for_real:

I had basically zero familiarity with the lore/story, and was watching in a somewhat distracted state, so I was a little confused for the first episode or two (wait, isn't that the same person who...?), but once I understood that I was seeing things out of order it was not hard to assemble the jigsaw puzzle.

They drop hints early on that the timelines are different but it's not easy to pick up on if you miss them until I'd say, about episode 3 or 4. I've read the books and played the games and I remember thinking in episode 1 "wait, doesn't the Renfri stuff happen years earlier?" but I wrote it off as "I guess they changed the timeline for the show." I completely missed that Renfri said something like "Over in Cintra" Queen Calanthe just won her first battle" and in the very next scene Calanthe tells Ciri "I won my first battle when I was your age.""

It's a lot easier to miss that stuff when you're still figuring out wtf everyone's name is.   :uhrr:

I think I picked up on the time thing with a scene early on with Yennefer.

Have you guys already seen this?

Official netflix website with map, timelines, bestiary etc.

https://www.witchernetflix.com/

Yeah, I think noticed the same thing.  Indicated she was way ahead of everything else.

I noticed that the showrunners realize they made a goof by not having Jaskier/Dandelion age at all when he meets Geralt for a second time.

The Witcher is what happens when people who give a shit is given a crap ton of money to make something. And make something great.

And believe me, while these first 8 episodes were a bit of a jumbled mess here and there in some aspects (editing, dialogues, fundamental choices about how to develop the three main characters etc.), if the showrunner will stick to what Sapkowski wrote, you will definitely be in for some really great and unique moments (the writer is kinda "derivative" but really adds some funny, personal touches which you might not expect), starting right from next season. Can't wait.

So if I understand this correctly, the first book (or two?) are a collection of short stories about the Witcher's exploits.  Then they turn into full length novels?  Was the first season of this series based on one of the short story books, I'm assuming?

What time period do the games take place?  I'm assuming they can't be direct book adaptations.

First two books are the stories. Netlfix took a few of them and mixed.
Then we have 5 books of saga.
And after that one more (Season of the storms). Which if I remember correctly happens some time during saga.

The games are based on the saga but not directly.

Book 3-7 are full length novels, yes.

- The first season of the TV series has adapted some short stories from both the first and the second book of the saga. Showrunner and writers also came up with something entirely original, like Yennefer's "Origin story" which, in the books, is like....3 lines of writing in book 6 or 7 :P

- The TV series  "fast forwarded" to the end of book 2 when it comes to the fall of Cintra and Ciri storyline, otherwise we wouldn't have seen Ciri until season 2 of the TV series (and even toward the end of it).


- Regarding the overall timeline, the book saga ends with book 7 (called "The Lady of the Lake"), in the year 1265 or something; games take place AFTER the books, starting from Year 1270.

There is a "book 8" ("Seasons of Storms"), which Sapkowski published, like....20 years after book 7 (in 2018 or something) as a way to cash in from the growing success of the franchise thanks to the videogames. It is not not a sequel to book 7, but another collection of short stories that are slotted somewhere between the ones narrated in book 1.

Some of the comments here sound like the general reception to The Expanse.

* Confusing, separate storylines (not temporally disconnected though)
* Editing, pacing in the first season
* Changes from the first book

I'll have to add this to show my watch list.

The separate storylines happening in different times but shown simultaneously was done artfully in a way that I haven't seen before, rather than mishandled. It's challenging viewing rather than erroneous. They knew what they were doing with it (leading to a same-time conclusion).

I have to agree with this. It becomes a "oh wow" rather than "that was badly done" series of moments.

I'm working through the books at the moment, the showrunners seem to be on the ball and Cavill seems well and truly on point.

When I figured out the times were different, everything clicked for me and it was a satisfying moment. Good on the show for that.

One thing I like about the time differential is that it lets you see something like the murder and dispossession of the elves both in the immediate aftermath of it and in the longer-term consequences of it. It's also very clever in that you both see Geralt as this famous person with this huge reputation and see simultaneously the messy complexity of how he acquired that reputation without the use of flashbacks, etc.

That's a smart move for future seasons too, since it lets them drop new 'stories of Geralt and Yennefer' into different places in the timeline as appropriate rather than always be advancing the forward motion of the Ciri plotline in a relentless way.

My wife had that moment in Episode 3.

My new ringtone:

https://youtu.be/bS4Q-WWyl3Q?t=49 (https://youtu.be/bS4Q-WWyl3Q?t=49)

Ah, they're adapting "A Grain of Truth" as one episode of Season 2 with Kristofer Hivju as Nivellen. Excellent.

Season 2 teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aMVzFlApa0

December 17th.

WitcherCon Stream 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMjTMybsZvo

"The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf" (anime spin-off) launched on Netflix over the weekend and I watched it.

It's perfectly serviceable entertainment and a fine way to spend 83 minutes if you like fantasy tales. It made me want to rewatch season 1 of this.

Road to Season 2 Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSDKdjLlFxE

Lots of Season 1 footage in there.

I can't wait for December!

Season 2 Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJFVV2L8GKs

Haven't read the books or watched Season 1 yet but seems kind of spoilery.

Hm. No, not really, I don't think? If you got to the end of Season 1, the war was underway. I can see a couple of the stories they're adapting and like the game, the monster-centered ones are "procedurals", meaning that you gotta get into the guts of it to see what the twists are with the particular monster. The grand plot arc doesn't have that many surprises as yet, but the big developments are actually not in this at all really (Kaer Morhen, etc.)

I started watching Season 2 and, putting aside plot points for a moment, there are a lot more nods to videogame Geralt: general mannerism, his "exchanges" with Płotka (Roach), even the style of Nilgaard armor is now full videogame.

It's not that surprising: as we probably already discussed in the past, there was lots of angst between Sapkowski and CD Projekt; thanks to some money involved, production seems no longer "embarassed" to adopt some of the excellent characterizations the videogames provided.

One suggestion, if you want to give it a try: watch it dubbed in Polish, it just feels *right*, and the voices are excellent.  Hell, playing Witcher 3 in polish brings it to an even higher level, IMO.

Binging on it 2 episodes a night. Lots of nods to the games, some to the books. It's not as strong as S1, but still watchable.

I really only had two thoughts, wait this is it and wait this is it???? I loved it, but the entire season felt like damage control. I also loved what they did with Ciri who instead of being annoying like in any other setting like this comes off as enduring without feeling older or suddenly wiser than her character suppose to be. You cheer for her because she wants to earn her place in the world and not because she is the "chosen".

I'm only about halfway into Season 2 but it feels like it is diverging fairly significantly from the books. It's been a while since I read them so I may be wrong but:

No, I agree. They have chucked the book continuity out and a lot of things just don't tell a good story, merely an adequate one. Triss and Yennifer's stories just don't really fit the storyline, Geralt is just being superman and saving the day with no good reason as to why he is super-witcher, Cahir's story is all over the place, and the final reveal was a complete let-down! It had none of the nuances of the books, none of the developing storyline and payoffs. I'm not saying they aren't telling a story in the series, it's just not a good story. It was far more nuanced and clever in Season 1.

They seem to be grabbing the bits of the video games they like and flipping the bird to the books to do their own thing.

--Dave

I'm halfway through the second season and they are definitely diverging from the books a bit.  I fear the ego of the writers might screw this up a bit.  They have made up big parts of Yen's story and it's just not working well.  I fear they are falling into the trope where the lead female character is super powerful and her only problem is that she doubts herself. I am liking Gerralt and Ciri's  story line though.

Yennefer is insanely powerful in the books. That's part of the character's burden to bear. It comes up again and again (and materializes in Witcher 3 to boot). If you've read Blood of Elves, once Triss grasps Ciri's situation, she says "well, there's not much I can do, but Yennefer? maybe"

Might as well. I've never been a purist for adaptations. What's the point? You'll never do it faithfully enough to please the fans, and if you did it'd probably make shit TV.

The book fans are going absolute apeshit over it (I've only read a few) and everyone else seems to be "a little unsteady but it's good enough TV" which is...good enough.

I mean, Ciri in the training grounds was 90% videogame. I could practically see the QTE prompts.

--Dave

I'm getting strong Game of Thrones vibes. An excellent retelling of the books that is going steadily to shit, with a few good moments thrown in. The storytelling really was weak this season, compared to last season. I like the characters enough, but Yennifer and Dandelion (yeah, I prefer the book name) just felt added in to mark time, Tris really didn't serve much in terms of plot, leaving it to Geralt/Ciri to carry the interesting parts. It just feels like they are making it up as they go on this time.

Is there a part in the books where Yennefer loses her magic ability and must overcome her self doubt?  I've only read a few of them.

That's one of the divergences I mentioned.

Enjoyed it. More focused than Season 1.  I like how all of the boat guard's gripes about the Bard's songs were criticisms people had made about the first season.

So now that there is a season 2 out, I have finally started watching it and am totally hooked.  Are the books worth getting into?

Yes, but they were never really written as a series.  The internet says this is the order that makes the most sense

    The Last Wish
    Sword of Destiny
    Blood of Elves
    Time of Contempt
    Baptism of Fire
    The Tower of the Swallow
    The Lady of the Lake
    Season of Storms (optional; explained below)

Spoilers all the way to ending

By Blood of Elves, the books definitely have *some* sense of sequence--characters are constantly referring to things that have happened. There's still episodic parts that don't tightly fit into an arc, sure.

I liked it better than S1 but then again I read all the books after watching S1 and waiting for s2.

This was the worst bit of the second season for me. Otherwise ok enough, though not really as much fun as the first and the overall plot is a bit hard for me care about as a non book or game viewer. Given they didn't do hardly any fun stadalonish episodes this was the main flaw of the season for me.

They could probably have done the overall plot movements with some better pacing and linking and made me care more.

Just an FYI, almost all of this entire season was made up, and had nothing to do with the books.  It's kinda understandable I guess because they're past the stand alone short stories and into the main books.  Trying to do any more of the books would commit them to a story arc that would take several more seasons to tell.  But still, that means it was up the the writers to make up their own story, and the results were pretty meh.  Literally the only stuff from the books in this season was beast/vampire mansion story (which was a stand alone story just like all the season 1 stuff, that didn't involve Ciri originally), and the fact that Ciri went to that healing temple to study (and met an awkward young nerdy guy there).  But everything that happened at the temple is totally different than the books.

A lot of this season in actually in Blood of Elves, so I don't get saying that it has nothing to do with the books.

Ciri goes to Kaer Morhen after meeting Geralt, trains on the training grounds (which are described in the books very much as they appeared in this season), Triss goes there to help with Ciri (and realizes just how powerful Ciri might be), Triss worries that the witchers might be thinking of giving her the witcher treatment and also cusses them out because they haven't realized she's menstruating, the witchers tell Triss that they're also very aware that Ciri is powerful and dangerous.

Rience being sent to hunt Ciri happens in the books; he catches Dandilion in a brothel and tortures him for information. He's saved by Yennefer, but she hasn't been depowered, so she burns him with magic rather than booze and a torch. Rience escapes and becomes a consistent adversary through most of Blood of Elves.

The healing temple and the nerdy guy is in Blood of Elves.

The thing about the leshy doesn't happen in the books. Yennefer being depowered doesn't happen in Blood of Elves, and a lot of the time we don't know where she is or what she's doing (e.g., her story is not co-equal with Geralt's; if anybody else gets attention independently it tends to be Dandilion and Ciri). But a lot of this season comes from Blood of Elves.

The nature of elves confused me through the whole season. They are apparently super-powerful magical creatures, but also a marginalized, refugee population that also can't have children?

It actually is kind of both in the books (and in Witcher 3, where you learn some of this).

Elf facts that are important in the Witcher series:

Elves are also imperialists in the lands that the Witcher takes place in. They came before humans, but way after dwarves and gnomes, who've been there way way longer. (Gnomes are described as genuine autochthons who have been there forever and ever; dwarves acknowledge that they arrived after gnomes.)  Elves first came about a thousand years ago and took some of their lands from dwarves, whom they forced back into the mountains. The elves fought against humans when they arrived but also worked out some lasting truces or co-habitation arrangements in some cases, but those didn't tend to last, so they were pushed out of more and more of their former cities.

Elves live a really long time but only young elves can get pregnant. The last time elves rose up strongly to push out human invaders, all of the warriors were young elves of both genders who were inspired to rise up, and the humans slaughtered almost all of them. That amounted to genocide even though older elves stayed out of it and kept in their own distant lands because there were so few left to have children. Only recently have the elves began to rebuild their numbers--and whoops, a lot of the young ones got inspired again and are off to fight humans.

Elves think of themselves as magically created whereas they believe human beings evolved from animals, which they think is gross. They definitely think of themselves as entitled to rule over everybody else but they also know they're essentially completely done in terms of real power or military capacity compared to humans. Think of them a bit as highly educated WASPs from New England who remember the good old days when Muffy and Tad went to Harvard and got to run all the corporations and the government and now it's fucking NASCAR and Pentecostals handling rattlesnakes all the time, plus graduates of declasse places like Stanford, and a few Negroes and Hispanics as well. They think highly of themselves, but they know their real power is fading; they tend to live in the past and think of the old days, but sometimes the young ones get fired up and think they can take over a major oil company and buy a football team as well as continue to go out on the sailboats in Ogunquit.

There's an entirely different group of VERY POWERFUL elves who live in another dimension that's kind of connected to the Witcher dimension; these are the goobers who make up the Wild Hunt and they're the ones who want Ciri. But the Wild Hunt is about more than just catching Ciri--they're basically multidimensional slave raiders who are constantly stocking up. The elves living in the regular world of the Witcher sort of know about the extradimensional elves but they don't see themselves as one people or even very closely connected.

The Witcher world also just has a ton of random fantasy garbage strewn about because of the Conjunction, which they talked about in both seasons--basically a dimensional car crash. So for example there are some hobbits in the Witcher world but they're not from anywhere that anybody knows anything about, they don't live in their own communities, they're just leftover trash fantasy creatures from some other dimension.

Heh, sounds like a Tolkien Mad-Libs or something. Thanks for the explanation. I kept thinking they said Ciri had "Elder" blood since her being part elven didn't seem like much of a big deal. Makes more sense now.

The elves (both the freaky extra-dimensional ones and the usual invaders from somewhere ones) are "Elder Blood", and so are the Dwarves.

The elves have sex with humans a lot after humans show up in these parts but they're kind of embarrassed about it and don't talk about it that much. It's not like Elrond where there's 2 or 3 such and they're all a big deal, it's lots of humiliating meetings after dark in castles where nobody talks about it later.

Basically, it absolutely IS Tolkien Mad-Libs plus General Fairy Tale Mad-Libs. Take any given Grimm's and it might show up somewhere in the Witcher books only with the worst imaginable twist on it. (Like the Beauty and the Beast mini-story in this season where the reason he's cursed is that he raped the priestess who cursed him.) If there are elves and dwarves and gnomes and humans, they've all done fucking awful things to each other and been each other's victims in some way and most of them are trying to cover it up or retell the whole thing. It's one reason some people are sort of drawn to the Nilfgaardians--the Emperor is a strong, resolute and basically non-hypocritical leader--he is 100% exactly what he says he is, which is basically Napoleon--a conqueror who actually wants to sweep away all the little bullshit kingdoms in the North run by penny-ante motherfuckers and scumbags and who doesn't really scruple at much to do what he means to do, whereas in the North there's just about nobody with any sense of honor or root-level values and they're very prone to give in to their worst prejudices and fears.

Guess Cavill either really wants to be Superman again in the new regime, or he really didn't like the way The Witcher was going. Makes me feel worried about the third season, though it's almost a year away still.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/liam-hemsworth-henry-cavill-the-witcher-season-4-1235251562

I like Liam, but this won't work. I can't see replacing the star of this and just continuing like nothing happened.

I'm trying really hard to think about another situation with such a significant downgrade in actors as this one. I'm sure there's some TV show out there that did an even worse job than this of replacing a lead actor but I sure can't think of one.

I think it was the later and then the Superman opportunity came along and he took it. It felt like going into it Geralt was his dream role but then got tired of fighting with the decision makers about the portrayal of Geralt and other aspects of the show and began looking for a way out.

Kind of tragic considering how pitch-perfect the first season was.

Loved the first season, what they did with the books as source material was excellent. Season 2 you could see they were trying to improve on the books, and struggling to sell it. Who knows what
S3 will be like.

Spartacus, but that wasn't their fault for obvious reasons.

Spartacus was also the example that came to mind for me, but I don't remember the new lead actor being that much of a downgrade (although it was obviously jarring).  Mostly it felt like the show was already done once the Batiati got killed off, since John Hannah and Lucy Lawless stole every scene they were in.

The Spartacus replacement did just fine, he just wasn't Andy Whitfield.

Liam Hemsworth confirmed worse than cancer, got it.

Liam Neeson would've been a better replacement, just jump the timeline ahead a few decades. Would be interesting to see Old Man Geralt stories, maybe use a King Conan vibe.

Is Netflix still a thing?  :grin:

That could honestly be another part of what's going on, actually--Netflix cheaping out on the fourth season and Cavill saying "welp, I like these books, but not that money, cya".

There is a limited series called Blood Origin, which I think is supposed to be the origin story of the first Witcher.  Was 'fine'.

Everybody, from fans to legit reviewers, seem to hate it.  It's been pretty universal.  I'm not going to bother watching.

But it's an entirely original story from anything that was in the books, so considering how uneven a lot of non book stuff they made up was in the main series, it's understandable they don't have the ability to write their own show.

It just is. The action is good for Netflix, the story exists to serve a useful purpose but doesn't stand on its own well. The setting is jarring since apparently pre humanity elves were just humans with dumb ears? No idea what/if official lore is on that count.

It has a few moments, is really short. I'd watch it before S3 just to setup the major plot notes of S3 unless you don't need the hand holding it's not that much of a slog.

Felt like Mando S2, but I was less annoyed since you knew it was a lower budget, way less star power short little thing that had a job to do.

I have a hard time figuring out why someone was willing to spend money on a story that has absolutely none of the charm of the series but they weren't willing to focus on making the second and third seasons better--and weren't willing to throw tons of money at Cavill and make him happy. The first season was one of Netflix's biggest successes no matter how they measure success. The showrunner denies that anyone involved hates the source material, but the rumor isn't based on nothing--there's at least one writer who has been saying that's one of the problems.

A prequel is only worth it if there's an untold story that has some specific narrative weight (and some bearing on the main story). What the Witcher series world was like before the Conjunction isn't interesting--the early books in the series practically mock the generic-ness of the elves and dwarves in the series (along with subverting many familiar fairy tales). By the time of the third game in the series and the late books, the elvish backstory had acquired more specificity and gravitas but really only in terms of human dispossession of their lands and in terms of the elves in the Wild Hunt's dimension.