Television The Witcher | Netflix | There are book spoilers here

Lyricist said:
He just used abbreviations for the titles of the first 2 books. Probably as to not instantly link the written out book titles with the different seasons of the series…idk
Click to expand...


Ah yeah I see...

Hmmm Then I dont really see the point why the next season should stay closer to the books... The whole Thaned events are happening in TOC as I recall and I dont really see - given where we are now in the series - how they are going to stick close to the book there..

But we'll have to wait and see. I will soon go into season 2 again, and try to let go of how I think should happen (read: how they are happning in the books) and just try to follow the series..
 
BrilliantOrange said:
It's one of the major things indeed, but I have a whole lot of other stuff on my list below where they deviate.. Some of them Im really struggling with, others Im still debating to the extent in which im bothered with it...

The whole Monolith thing which Ciri destroys and where new monsters come out of is not in the books. In the books they are more often than not mentioning the decrease of monsters and the use of witchers, in stead of new kinds of monsters appearing. And what's with the monoliths being triggers for monsters from other worlds appearing? That all not happening in the books, where its about Ciri jumping between realities. Im really not sure why the makers deemed in necessary to introduce this topic into an already quite complicated story...

This also brings me to the role of Istred. In the books Istridd plays. I actually quite like his character, but in the books he plays a very minor role, only really appearing in the short story A Shard of Ice.. The only time Geralt and Istridd meet and know damn sure they are rivals for Yennefers affection. In the series they are suddenly studying monoliths together?

Voluth Meir is also a character which is non-existent in the books. Did they add her for another exiting story? I can live with making up some minor character for an exiting episode introducing monsters or anything, but this seems exeggerated, as the introduction of Voluth Meir is intertwined with 1) The whole monolith thing 2) Yennefer losing her magic 3) the Yennefer Ciri relationship.

So I dont really remember what happened what happened exactly with Yennefer directly after Sodden in the books, but she sure as hell wasnt captured by the Brotherhood with Cahir and they certainly didnt escape together and Yennefer certainly wasnt captured by Elves together with Fringilla. Why did they feel the need to mess up this whole timeline? I also think there is no mention whatsoever about Yennefer losing her magic in the books. She defeats Rience using magic right in the books? What in earth is the added value there for introducing it in the series?

The whole Voluth Meir thing also really messing with the Yennefer Ciri relationship. In the books Geralt requests Yennefer to help train Ciri at Nenneke's, after which they evolve into a mother-daughter relationship. They can still recover from this with Yennefer starting to train Ciri from S3 onwards. The whole basis of their introduction is tainted for me in the series however, with a starting point of Yennefer trying to lure Ciri into the hands of a demon (because she lost her magic, which doens thappen in the books in the first place..)

The whole thing with Yennefers capture by elves/brotherhoods/monoliths as triggers for new monster appearances/Yennefer losing magic/Voluth Meir is intertwined and all of it never happens in the books. They created a whole new timeline/new content for the series and Im really really wondering why.. There was a perfectly nice exiting timeline /line of events to go on with..

The relationship between Ciri and Triss is also cery different in the books. Triss comes to Khaer Moren by request of Geralt to help Ciri indeed, but they evolve into a really trust relationship where Ciri considers Triss her big sister. In the series the end up with Triss shooting in Ciri's eyes she is death herself basically, and runs off to tell on her, in stead of keeping it quiet and trying to help her where she can (like in the books) and travelling with her to Nenneke with Geralt from Khaer Moren.

Like mentioned above as well.. Vesemir trying to inject Ciri with the Witcher serum is absolute shambles, as it's so far away from the values and how everyone at Khaer Moren treats Ciri.. Moreover the existence of the new Witcher serum is something that nowhere occurs in the books, which is a quite essential concept of the books..

So the whole Cahir things bothers me as well.. I think all that happened with him during this series didn't happen in the books.. Where he 'fails' at Sodden, then later 'fails' at Thaned, but there is (or am I remembering it wrong) no real mention of stuff like this happening to him (or him meeting Yennefer etc) in between those events? Im really wondering how there are working up towards the Thaned events..

The whole Fringilla/Fransesca is also something whihc doenst occur in the books.. I dont think there are mentions of them meeting pre-Thaned.. Francesca I dont think is even introduced before Thaned.. Now there is this whole storyline about here have somekind of female bromance (is there a word for that) with Fringilla, she gets a baby which gets killed and she want justice by killing Redenian babies. Why? What is the point of introducing this storyline?

Do they want to explain/strenghtn why Nilfgard and the elves have an alliance? They could have done so in less destructive manners right? In the books the Scoiatel (of which there is no mention in the series) are introduced when Geralt/Triss/Ciri travel away from Khaer Moren, and they get attacked in the road.. I dont see why this whole Francesca/Elven chapter is added to the series?

Im really really wondering how they are working towards the Thaned events and how they will portray the Thaned events..

And ehhh.. Why are they already exposing Emhyr as Ciri's dad? That happens really really late in the books.. Near the final part of the final book... I think they are taking a lot of the suspense away of 'what the hell happened, why does Emhyr want Ciri, whats the mysery with Pavetta's/Duny's death' away.. Ofcourse also a lot of people who only played The Witcher 3 and not have read the books also already know Ciri is Emhyrs daughter..

So thats a whole chunk of stuff which bothers me really to different extents.. Some other things which Im wondering

- Why taint the picture of Eskel so much by portraying him like this? I can understand the serie makers wanting to introduce a good monster figth and the bit with the Leshen is a decent manner to do so, but why use Eskels character for this? They could've just kept closer to the Eskel book character and made up another non significant Witcher character getting bushed by the leshen.

- Im also slightly bothered by the Dandelion/Jaskier - Geralt relationship. It was already at the end of S1, but in the books they have a close friendship throughout and there is no falling out between them after the Golden Dragen adventure.. I dont like it why they did that..

- Rience suddenly finding his way to Khaer Moren, because he follows Yennefer? Come'on..?!

Ok, so writing all this above.. Im quite bothered with the sum of all things. Maybe Im to stuck on wanting/expecting them to stick closer to the books.. The thingh do which bother me is that:
- a lot of the chances are stirring into the essence of the storyline/character relations..
- I dont understand why a lot of these changes are necessary?

Any thoughts by others who've read the books and seen the series?
Click to expand...

Great post but man can't the books be the books, the games the games and the tv show the tv show? They are very different mediums of story telling and require massive adaptations to cull the scope and most importantly to make sure no character is left out to the point they decide to leave the show. There is a whole other huge set of rules for tv shows and tv pacing. I mean its essentially fan fiction (as was the games) and pretty good fan fiction, I'm not trying to be a cnut here but the books will always be the books.

TV needs a little story to begin and end every episode along with the over arching story, hence you get things like little dramas between Geralt and Jaskier falling out or with Eskel they could have decided him for many things... the actor might be on a short contract and going elsewhere, his part might be merged with another character to save the budget later etc.. There are tons of minute things that you can't do in a tv series like you can in a book. He's essentially a throwaway character given a well known name in the tv series and we're essentially not getting Eskel.

WoT, GoT, The Witcher, The Shannara Chronicles (shit book and shit show) all vary hugely. A 1 to 1 adaptation is never gonna happen, I'm a lot more comfortable with shows in general since I've stop trying to expect the books.
 
WI_Red said:
Based on interviews with Sapkowski I went into the series, and especially season 2, fully expecting a big deviation from the books. Here are some quotes from his interview with Gizmodo:


and my favorite line (and a good way to look at the show):



And here are his comments on season 2:
Click to expand...
Sapkowski has always been a bit of a dick though, hasn't he? I don't mean that in a bad way either, he's just always been very blunt. I loved when he was asked about the games and he just said he's never played any and that they lack the ability to tell a story properly, but they offered him shitloads of money so why not?
 
Mr Pigeon said:
Sapkowski has always been a bit of a dick though, hasn't he? I don't mean that in a bad way either, he's just always been very blunt. I loved when he was asked about the games and he just said he's never played any and that they lack the ability to tell a story properly, but they offered him shitloads of money so why not?
Click to expand...

He paid the price for that though. Took a one time sum for the rights to the story from CD Projekt Red instead of a percentage, didn't he? For a game that sold as well as Witcher 3, that must've been a huge loss for him.
 
Lyricist said:
He paid the price for that though. Took a one time sum for the rights to the story from CD Projekt Red instead of a percentage, didn't he? For a game that sold as well as Witcher 3, that must've been a huge loss for him.
Click to expand...
Yeah you're right. But he got the last laugh when he sabotaged CDPRs next project*.

*I have no way of proving that but I'm still trying to understand how Cyberpunk was so bad.
 
padr81 said:
WoT, GoT, The Witcher, The Shannara Chronicles (shit book and shit show) all vary hugely. A 1 to 1 adaptation is never gonna happen, I'm a lot more comfortable with shows in general since I've stop trying to expect the books.
Click to expand...

Probably the right attitude to take.

However(and you knew it was coming) for a fan of the source material some of the changes can be difficult to accept. I look at the WOT adaptation and going in I expected major cuts, there is too much there to tell, but on the same hand I find it much harder to accept when showrunners just ignore the source and add in scenes, characters that were never there, a little fan fiction on TV. There is a warder character added in WOT who basically has large parts of 2 episodes based around him. At the same time, some of the main characters have been very thinly drawn so far and I can only see that added character as a hindrance to the development of those that really matter.

The first season of Game of Thrones was remarkably true to the books, but as they moved forward that temptation to take creative charge and add in their own stuff takes over, often with not enough thought to the consequences, lets get to the cool, without doing the character, plot, and world building legwork that really makes those scenes so strong. GOT ended up wasting some great characters and arcs to make room for their own nonsense as they rushed between set pieces, and you could see it coming from the 2nd season onwards, despite it still being an excellent show in many ways.
 
Last edited:
padr81 said:
Great post but man can't the books be the books, the games the games and the tv show the tv show? They are very different mediums of story telling and require massive adaptations to cull the scope and most importantly to make sure no character is left out to the point they decide to leave the show. There is a whole other huge set of rules for tv shows and tv pacing. I mean its essentially fan fiction (as was the games) and pretty good fan fiction, I'm not trying to be a cnut here but the books will always be the books.

TV needs a little story to begin and end every episode along with the over arching story, hence you get things like little dramas between Geralt and Jaskier falling out or with Eskel they could have decided him for many things... the actor might be on a short contract and going elsewhere, his part might be merged with another character to save the budget later etc.. There are tons of minute things that you can't do in a tv series like you can in a book. He's essentially a throwaway character given a well known name in the tv series and we're essentially not getting Eskel.

WoT, GoT, The Witcher, The Shannara Chronicles (shit book and shit show) all vary hugely. A 1 to 1 adaptation is never gonna happen, I'm a lot more comfortable with shows in general since I've stop trying to expect the books.
Click to expand...

You are 100% right in general... I should probaby just accept that they are different to some extent and see the books apart from the stories.. I was already debating for myself to what extent it all bothered me and to what extent I was just struck by the differences.. Im definetely gonna give it a second run and try to look at the story with an open mind..

I just hope they dont drift of from the fundamentals of the story/universe too much..
 
Bobski said:
Probably the right attitude to take.

However(and you knew it was coming) for a fan of the source material some of the changes can be difficult to accept. I look at the WOT adaptation and going in I expected major cuts, there is too much there to tell, but on the same hand I find it much harder to accept when showrunners just ignore the source and add in scenes, characters that were never there, a little fan fiction on TV. There is a warder character added in WOT who basically has large parts of 2 episodes based around him. At the same time, some of the main characters have been very thinly drawn so far and I can only see that added character as a hindrance to the development of those that really matter.

The first season of Game of Thrones was remarkably true to the books, but as they moved forward that temptation to take creative charge and add in their own stuff takes over, often with not enough thought to the consequences, lets get to the cool, without doing the character, plot, and world building legwork that really makes those scenes so strong. GOT ended up wasting some great characters and arcs to make room for their own nonsense as they rushed between set pieces, and you could see it coming from the 2nd season onwards, despite it still being an excellent show in many ways.
Click to expand...

I've read WoT multiple times, if I went into that show wanting the books, I'd have killed Rafe by now, but its a tv adaptation of WoT. So we're gonna get tv stuff for tv sake... we have to accept that (well we don't have to but we're rnever gonna enjoy it if we don't). Same with the Witcher etc..

While GoT season 1 was closer to the books, Westeros.org went mental at the changes it made at the time... and I'd say had season 1 been released now these details would be pointed out strong. this is the reaction to minor GoT season1 episode 3 changes.https://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.p...isode-3-what-was-left-out-and-what-was-added/
Honestly it was season 1 of GoT that thought me to accept the book is the book and the show is the show as George would say. The butterfly effect grew worse as it went on, maybe these shows are trying to prevent that with huge changes. I know on WoT, Rafe has a person who he runs stuff by and they have to account for every future possibility or potential scenario for every change so unlike D&D with GoT, there seems to be much more planning ahead going into these tv adaptations.

Should make an edit cause that reads kinda stubborn. I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't like so hope its not taken as such. Just stating trying to make the book of anything in tv form is pretty much impossible work.
 
Last edited:
Just finished it and it’s growing on me. Think we need more fleshed out characters to care about if it’s gonna be successful and reach the planned 7 seasons though.

I’ve not read the books or played the games though so don’t have anything to compare to.
 
AaronRedDevil said:
yep. I hate it. And they turned him into a womanizer Ahole. Butchered a good character. Also Roach!? What the feck.
Click to expand...
Think about the timeline. That's not the same horse we saw in e1s1.
 
Swedish_Plumber said:
Just finished it and it’s growing on me. Think we need more fleshed out characters to care about if it’s gonna be successful and reach the planned 7 seasons though.

I’ve not read the books or played the games though so don’t have anything to compare to.
Click to expand...

So much still to live for...
 
Just finished. Enjoyed it but found S1 much better.
didn’t like Yenn losing her magic,
Didn’t like several strange timing jumps I.e Ciri stabbing Geralt but then everybody stands still so she can run away, the 6 horses who react so fast to chasing Ciri and Yenn etc
 
)_( said:
that interview is wild :lol: :lol: but it's a refreshing take
Click to expand...
He is a bit of a mad bastard tbf. I’m surprised he’s so content with the show, if I recall correctly he was very critical of the video games — especially when TW3 massively rose to fame.

EDIT: the post about money above from @Lyricist makes sense to explain his disdain for CDPR
 
I've just finished S2. I quite liked it, and I've played the games, but I saw that there's been some unhappiness. I've literally just watched the last episode, so my opinion might need to settle.
Why were people unhappy about it? I didn't love it though, and it felt like a good fantasy, but felt like it was missing the Witcher spark at times. Is that it or is there more?
 
Crackers said:
I've just finished S2. I quite liked it, and I've played the games, but I saw that there's been some unhappiness. I've literally just watched the last episode, so my opinion might need to settle.
Why were people unhappy about it? I didn't love it though, and it felt like a good fantasy, but felt like it was missing the Witcher spark at times. Is that it or is there more?
Click to expand...
Thinking on it more, it feels a bit soulless. It's good, but it's not a witcher series - it feels HBOized. I love the characters but doesn't give them enough depth. Caville is sublime though.
 
Crackers said:
I've just finished S2. I quite liked it, and I've played the games, but I saw that there's been some unhappiness. I've literally just watched the last episode, so my opinion might need to settle.
Why were people unhappy about it? I didn't love it though, and it felt like a good fantasy, but felt like it was missing the Witcher spark at times. Is that it or is there more?
Click to expand...
Book readers don’t like it because it deviates. I haven’t read the books but I agree with them on some points.

It is in a peculiar state where the ’professional’ critics like it better than the dedicated fans that care enough to leave a review, whereas the first season was the complete opposite.
 
Crackers said:
Thinking on it more, it feels a bit soulless. It's good, but it's not a witcher series - it feels HBOized. I love the characters but doesn't give them enough depth. Caville is sublime though.
Click to expand...
What does this mean? And why isn't it a good thing?
 
Just got done with it, I loved it. Will probably rewatch it again over Christmas. I love the fantasy genre but haven't read the books or played the game so it's all a welcome surprise to me. I think the wiring, acting, production and directing is all top tier.

If you compare it to something like the Wheel of Time on Prime currently and it's a couple of levels above that in almost every measure. The only shame is that it's only 8 episodes and ends so quickly..

I did think the season started slowly though, and a lot of the season focused on character building and setting up the arcs of various factions, so I can understand if people who know more of the story thought it was a bit too slow. I loved it however. Just hoping there's an actual end in the books and it doesn't go all George R.R. Martin on us.
 
Just finished season 2 and felt this was a massive step forward for the tv series. If season 1 was messy, season 2 is an absolute triumph for the Witcher brand.

Shame it’s only 8 episodes but the finale really delivered this time. They blended their own arcs with the main story which worked very well, though I do hope to see them follow TOC a bit closer than they have done BOE.

However, if I was to give season 1 a 6.5/10, this time I would give season 2 and 8/10!
 
Crackers said:
I've just finished S2. I quite liked it, and I've played the games, but I saw that there's been some unhappiness. I've literally just watched the last episode, so my opinion might need to settle.
Why were people unhappy about it? I didn't love it though, and it felt like a good fantasy, but felt like it was missing the Witcher spark at times. Is that it or is there more?
Click to expand...

Have you read the books? Most unhappinese stems from deviations with the books..
 
Absolutely loved season 2. I didn't realize I was on episode 8 with the reveal at the end, and then I was wanting more
Ahhh


Really hope we don't wait a long time for season 3.

It's fantastic fantasy fun
 
Sapkowski sounds great tbh, but why did I think a chick wrote these books???
 
Fringilla in episode 7. That was fecking chilling and bad ass at the same. Time.
 
Such a good second season. So happy after the first season being a bit all over the place. Going to kill me waiting for the third now!
 
I really liked season two. I think they did a better job with Witcher than WoT. Going in to both, I would have guessed WoT would have been more enjoyable to watch.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
I really liked season two. I think they did a better job with Witcher than WoT. Going in to both, I would have guessed WoT would have been more enjoyable to watch.
Click to expand...
Not really fair to compare a first season, which was laying the groundwork, with a second season.
 
mu4c_20le said:
Not really fair to compare a first season, which was laying the groundwork, with a second season.
Click to expand...

If it really matters, Season 1 of the Witcher seemed better than Season one of WoT. The pacing was really good in both seasons of Witcher. In WoT sometimes the pacing was really rushed and at other times it dragged. I enjoy both series, I just feel the writing has been more consistent with the Witcher. Cavill has been excellent.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
If it really matters, Season 1 of the Witcher seemed better than Season one of WoT. The pacing was really good in both seasons of Witcher. In WoT sometimes the pacing was really rushed and at other times it dragged. I enjoy both series, I just feel the writing has been more consistent with the Witcher. Cavill has been excellent.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, personally I placed WoT just above Witcher S1 and behind Thrones first season. I didn't like the direction of witcher's first season and I felt like I only knew what was going on because I knew the story. And the Aes Sedai made the mages look like a sorority house. Triss was barely there and it just felt a bit rushed. Totally agree that Cavill basically carries the show.
 
As someone that has read the books season 1 was good as a starting point, season 2 was piss poor.

It started to feel like I was watching some crappy Sky One Christmas seasonal show. I fully expect David Walliams to appear in season 3 now. Awful.

Another franchise butchered by cultural vandals. What will Liberals and their turd fingers turn to next?
 
moxdevil said:
As someone that has read the books season 1 was good as a starting point, season 2 was piss poor.

It started to feel like I was watching some crappy Sky One Christmas seasonal show. I fully expect David Walliams to appear in season 3 now. Awful.

Another franchise butchered by cultural vandals. What will Liberals and their turd fingers turn to next?
Click to expand...

Seriously, we all know that Geralt pranced around in a red MAGA hat. And don't get me started on his not supporting the building of the Nilfgardian wall. I bet he wouldn't even want Redania to pay for it. Stupid liberals ruining everything.
 
moxdevil said:
What does my comment have to do with Trump? Go away and suck on your mommy's tit you dumb childish twat.
Click to expand...

You brought politics into it my friend. Also, glad to see your level of civility lines up perfectly with what I guessed it to be.
 
I'm a newbie to The Witcher series and franchise. After watching season 1 last year, I didn't really get the hype. Wasn't even planning to watch season 2 but after being stuck at home for a 14 day quarantine I decided to give season 2 a go. Loved it.

I know that the series plot deviates from the books but I enjoyed it all the same. Planning to start the books now, I've also never played the game despite all the incredible reviews. Was wondering if it's alright just to start the game from the wild hunt or would it just confuse me in terms of the timeline of it all. Like I said I've never read the books or played any of the games, my only source material is the show.
 
the_cliff said:
I'm a newbie to The Witcher series and franchise. After watching season 1 last year, I didn't really get the hype. Wasn't even planning to watch season 2 but after being stuck at home for a 14 day quarantine I decided to give season 2 a go. Loved it.

I know that the series plot deviates from the books but I enjoyed it all the same. Planning to start the books now, I've also never played the game despite all the incredible reviews. Was wondering if it's alright just to start the game from the wild hunt or would it just confuse me in terms of the timeline of it all. Like I said I've never read the books or played any of the games, my only source material is the show.
Click to expand...
Just watch a story recap of Witcher 1 and 2 and jump straight into 3. Incredible game
 
Maxii said:
Just watch a story recap of Witcher 1 and 2 and jump straight into 3. Incredible game
Click to expand...
Cheers mate, will do. Got it for £5 of the ps store some time ago after seeing reviews but never actually gave it a go. Will definitely do it now, in fact it's already downloading. :lol: :lol:

Hopefully I get to the end by the time my quarantine ends.
 
the_cliff said:
I'm a newbie to The Witcher series and franchise. After watching season 1 last year, I didn't really get the hype. Wasn't even planning to watch season 2 but after being stuck at home for a 14 day quarantine I decided to give season 2 a go. Loved it.

I know that the series plot deviates from the books but I enjoyed it all the same. Planning to start the books now, I've also never played the game despite all the incredible reviews. Was wondering if it's alright just to start the game from the wild hunt or would it just confuse me in terms of the timeline of it all. Like I said I've never read the books or played any of the games, my only source material is the show.
Click to expand...

I had never heard of the Witcher before playing the Witcher 3 and I did find some of the lore/locations/characters confusing. Just saw @Maxii 's post pop up and I would concur. You don't need to watch them (I didn't as I had no idea they existed), but it will make the game make more sense from the start I think. Fantastic game that I am replaying right now for the fourth time.
 
A friend was telling me today that peta complained about this series using real lemurs and monkeys and not cgi. I can't for the life of me remember any scenes with these animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.