Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/04 23:10:28


Post by: Tannhauser42


For those who don't know, Netflix is working on an adaptation of The Witcher. There really hasn't been much news beyond the initial announcement of the show and the name of the producer/showrunner, Lauren Schmidt Hissrich. The author of the books, Andrzej Sapkowski, was initially involved but left at some point (he's rumored to be a less-than-easy person to work with).

Anyway, we finally have our first real big news regarding the show, and that's the announcement that Henry Cavill will be playing Geralt of Rivia. I'm honestly not sure what to think about that. Fairly big name, so that helps get attention. I've only seen him in his first Superman movie, as I haven't got around to watching the other DC movies, yet.

I've played the games and read the books (in that order), and I never had any particular actors in mind for the title role (or any of the roles, really). What do y'all think of the casting?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/04 23:20:40


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Hmmmmm....we need a leading man.

Do they need any kind of charisma or appeal?

FETH NO!

I know just the man....


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 00:29:49


Post by: Grimskul


I'm kinda surprised at the casting, he's definitely not the guy I expected. I was edging towards a more Slavic/Russian guy given that he's a Northener. Makes me a bit worried about who else they'll cast for the other main characters like Yennefer and Triss.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 02:20:07


Post by: Lance845


He can act. He was pretty good in the most recent Mission Impossible. Once they scar him up and stick him in the white wig we will have a better idea. No matter who they picked he was going to end up with prosthetic battle damage, pale make up, and a wig.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 05:58:53


Post by: Ctaylor


I'm... okay with this.

Henry Cavill is a fine actor and did a great job in the Man from UNCLE.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 08:19:41


Post by: Yodhrin


He's also apparently a ridiculous slobbering fanboy(I mean that in a good way), so there's every chance he'll bring some energy to this role rather than his "traffic bollard in a cape" style from the DC films.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 09:41:01


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Inb4 race-bent Yen!


Anyway, Henry as Geralt? I'll say Jim Caviezel was always my first choice, but I can see Henry working.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 09:50:43


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


It should have been Mads Mikkelsen frankly. But we'll see what Cavill can do.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 11:36:38


Post by: BaconCatBug


If you look into the writing staff, you can already see this is going to be a critical child of god but will be hated by audiences.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 13:29:46


Post by: Mysterio


Based on...what exactly?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 14:19:30


Post by: BaconCatBug


It's against the rules to say why.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 16:01:38


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


I think this casting will work out, out side of the DC movies Henry Cavill is a perfectly charismatic actor.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 18:26:32


Post by: Trondheim


 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
It should have been Mads Mikkelsen frankly. But we'll see what Cavill can do.


+| Mads Mikkelsen would have made for an amazing Geralt,


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/05 20:50:08


Post by: War Drone


Pretty contentless post from me here, but yeah ... I can see Cavill as Geralt.

I agree with Trondheim and Inquisitor G about Mikkelsen. I wonder if he was approached at all?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/07 09:30:50


Post by: KingCracker


 Trondheim wrote:
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
It should have been Mads Mikkelsen frankly. But we'll see what Cavill can do.


+| Mads Mikkelsen would have made for an amazing Geralt,



Yea no arguing there. That dude is an incredible actor though I'll wait and see what Cavill can do


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 00:36:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 01:16:05


Post by: dogma


 Tannhauser42 wrote:

I've played the games and read the books (in that order), and I never had any particular actors in mind for the title role (or any of the roles, really). What do y'all think of the casting?


Geralt is portrayed in the games as being wiry, and the games are how I think most people are aware of the character. Henry Cavill is not wiry, he's Hollywood buff.

I would have cast Jim Caviezel, or maybe Cillian Murphy.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 01:24:33


Post by: BaconCatBug


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 01:28:21


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 dogma wrote:
I would have cast Jim Caviezel
YES! Best choice.

All the time watching Person of Interest I was thinking "He's make a great Geralt!".


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 03:29:18


Post by: Elbows


That's a bit on the disappointing end. Seems like more of a "safe" choice then a good one. Meh.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 15:32:55


Post by: Commander Cain


Pretty excited for this, after seeing MI:6 I realized that Cavill was a good actor and he was awesome in every fight scene he was in.

Give the guy some scars and the white hair and I think he will do a great job in the role.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 15:43:17


Post by: Mr Morden


 Ctaylor wrote:
I'm... okay with this.

Henry Cavill is a fine actor and did a great job in the Man from UNCLE.


yep - plus I know at least one woman who is now more likely to watch the show.

Never played the game myself.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 16:26:22


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.


Not sure its the final nail, remember they cqn still mess up Triss and Ynne


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 17:42:52


Post by: Lance845


 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.


Not sure its the final nail, remember they cqn still mess up Triss and Ynne


Ciris real world ethnicity has nothing to do with her character so its pretty much fine for her to be whatever. Same goes for every character in the show. It could be a 100% hispanic cast and it would have no bearing on the characters. Nationality was an issue in the world of witcher. Race in terms of humans vs non humans. But skin color? Its hard to be upset about skin color when there are literal vampires and were wolves and trolls killing people.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 19:30:30


Post by: Mr Morden


 Lance845 wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.


Not sure its the final nail, remember they cqn still mess up Triss and Ynne


Ciris real world ethnicity has nothing to do with her character so its pretty much fine for her to be whatever. Same goes for every character in the show. It could be a 100% hispanic cast and it would have no bearing on the characters. Nationality was an issue in the world of witcher. Race in terms of humans vs non humans. But skin color? Its hard to be upset about skin color when there are literal vampires and were wolves and trolls killing people.


I found the Shanara tv series quite refreshing in this regard....


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 19:45:09


Post by: Yodhrin


 Lance845 wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.


Not sure its the final nail, remember they cqn still mess up Triss and Ynne


Ciris real world ethnicity has nothing to do with her character so its pretty much fine for her to be whatever. Same goes for every character in the show. It could be a 100% hispanic cast and it would have no bearing on the characters. Nationality was an issue in the world of witcher. Race in terms of humans vs non humans. But skin color? Its hard to be upset about skin color when there are literal vampires and were wolves and trolls killing people.


I think this point would be more valid if we were talking strictly about an adaptation of a book because of the popularity of the book, and people were getting pissy because they'd imagined the character in one way and they had chosen to cast differently. But the issue is we're not - the show is nominally an adaptation of the books, but the plain simple fact is it only exists because of the games and the popularity of those, and lots of people are going to feel it should reflect the previous adaptation of the story to a visual medium which has already firmly established what these characters are "supposed" to look like for many. Especially when it seems to have been a deliberate conscious choice to be "right on", in that the casting call is specifically for a BAME actor, rather than an open audition where a BAME actor happened to be the best person to put themselves forward.

And just to preempt the inevitable - I'm not upset by it, I have no feelings on it at all really since The Witcher is not one of the settings I'm particularly invested in. But I can see why someone who was invested as a result of the games would be annoyed, and I can also already see the legions of torch & pitchfork wielders mustering to declare anyone who did feel that way a monstrous racist.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 19:54:57


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 Mr Morden wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.


Not sure its the final nail, remember they cqn still mess up Triss and Ynne


Ciris real world ethnicity has nothing to do with her character so its pretty much fine for her to be whatever. Same goes for every character in the show. It could be a 100% hispanic cast and it would have no bearing on the characters. Nationality was an issue in the world of witcher. Race in terms of humans vs non humans. But skin color? Its hard to be upset about skin color when there are literal vampires and were wolves and trolls killing people.


I found the Shanara tv series quite refreshing in this regard....


nonsense Welsh Elfs is flat out unacceptable And Kiwi Blackclads, inconceivable


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 20:43:24


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Lance845 wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.
Not sure its the final nail, remember they cqn still mess up Triss and Ynne
Ciris real world ethnicity has nothing to do with her character so its pretty much fine for her to be whatever. Same goes for every character in the show. It could be a 100% hispanic cast and it would have no bearing on the characters. Nationality was an issue in the world of witcher. Race in terms of humans vs non humans. But skin color? Its hard to be upset about skin color when there are literal vampires and were wolves and trolls killing people.
Which is why no-one got annoyed at Motoko Kusanagi being played by a white american actress.

Simple test, reverse the situation and decide if people would be mad. If I took a black fictional character, then hired a white person to portray them in a TV adaptation, would you be angry?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/08 21:30:32


Post by: Lance845


Yodhrin wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Turnip Jedi wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well that didn't take long.

Still not 100% confirmed, but are we really shocked?
Inb4TheLock for being "Political".

This is the reason I said the show is going to suck earlier. The writers are the usual crowd of "We're Bigots but it's ok when we do it". I'm not a fan of The Witcher and all it's plagiarised glory to begin with but this is just the final nail in the coffin for me.


Not sure its the final nail, remember they cqn still mess up Triss and Ynne


Ciris real world ethnicity has nothing to do with her character so its pretty much fine for her to be whatever. Same goes for every character in the show. It could be a 100% hispanic cast and it would have no bearing on the characters. Nationality was an issue in the world of witcher. Race in terms of humans vs non humans. But skin color? Its hard to be upset about skin color when there are literal vampires and were wolves and trolls killing people.


I think this point would be more valid if we were talking strictly about an adaptation of a book because of the popularity of the book, and people were getting pissy because they'd imagined the character in one way and they had chosen to cast differently. But the issue is we're not - the show is nominally an adaptation of the books, but the plain simple fact is it only exists because of the games and the popularity of those, and lots of people are going to feel it should reflect the previous adaptation of the story to a visual medium which has already firmly established what these characters are "supposed" to look like for many. Especially when it seems to have been a deliberate conscious choice to be "right on", in that the casting call is specifically for a BAME actor, rather than an open audition where a BAME actor happened to be the best person to put themselves forward.

And just to preempt the inevitable - I'm not upset by it, I have no feelings on it at all really since The Witcher is not one of the settings I'm particularly invested in. But I can see why someone who was invested as a result of the games would be annoyed, and I can also already see the legions of torch & pitchfork wielders mustering to declare anyone who did feel that way a monstrous racist.


I agree that them specifically looking for a BAME actress is odd, but they might be trying to differentiate the different nations in witcher with more racial groups to help them stand out as more distinct. Since Ciri is so important, they might want to cast her FIRST and then go with her race for her father and so on. While a White person would easily be the viking guys (Skalds? What were they called again?) who were easily the most "white" of all the peoples in Witcher. Just throwing it out there as a potential reasoning.

What the games or books did doesn't matter. The show is going to bring in new audience and the new audience isn't going to give a gak about the game.

BaconCatBug wrote:Which is why no-one got annoyed at Motoko Kusanagi being played by a white american actress.

Simple test, reverse the situation and decide if people would be mad. If I took a black fictional character, then hired a white person to portray them in a TV adaptation, would you be angry?


People get mad about every fething thing. There is no decision they could have ever made that would not have made SOMEBODY mad.

As far as casting a white person in a traditionally black role, that would require that traditionally black character to have their race not be a part of the actual character. Unfortunately, most black characters in most media made in the last 100+ years are black for a reason. Black Manta is called Black Manta because he is a black person.



Black Lightning. Lots of people. White characters in many stories don't have their whiteness as a specific aspect of their character that helps define them, their values, and their goals. Find me a black character who in no way is defined by their blackness and it would probably be fine.

In fact, I can name you one. The Fox, from the comic version of Wanted, was a black chick.

Played by Angalina Jolie in the movie.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 04:41:24


Post by: dogma


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 dogma wrote:
I would have cast Jim Caviezel
YES! Best choice.

All the time watching Person of Interest I was thinking "He's make a great Geralt!".


Fun fact: Jim Caviezel and Henry Cavill were both in The Count of Monte Cristo. Cavill played Albert.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 13:15:49


Post by: Mr Morden


nonsense Welsh Elfs is flat out unacceptable And Kiwi Blackclads, inconceivable


Not sure if sarcastic or agreeing???

Both Shanara and Into the Badlands have a very mixed cast and it works very well - but it is post Apocalypse.

I don't know the Witcher world at all - if its supposed to be the usual quasi European medieval fantasy world than the any unusual ethnicity should be part of the character I think and part of their interactions with the majority of people they meet.

If its just a fantasy world well then anything pretty much goes unless there is a specific reason to have people of one racial background or another then you can probably just go with it.

For instance if the world is more like the Roman Empire it would be quite diverse as movement of people is quite large scale - particularly with the slave trade and the recruitment of the Legions/Auxiliaries who are normally posted well away from home.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 15:01:15


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Mr Morden wrote:
nonsense Welsh Elfs is flat out unacceptable And Kiwi Blackclads, inconceivable


Not sure if sarcastic or agreeing???

Both Shanara and Into the Badlands have a very mixed cast and it works very well - but it is post Apocalypse.

I don't know the Witcher world at all - if its supposed to be the usual quasi European medieval fantasy world than the any unusual ethnicity should be part of the character I think and part of their interactions with the majority of people they meet.

If its just a fantasy world well then anything pretty much goes unless there is a specific reason to have people of one racial background or another then you can probably just go with it.

For instance if the world is more like the Roman Empire it would be quite diverse as movement of people is quite large scale - particularly with the slave trade and the recruitment of the Legions/Auxiliaries who are normally posted well away from home.
I remember a CDPR dev saying something along the lines of "We're sorry we don't have a history of mass importing african slaves so our fantasy novels don't have any."


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 15:05:30


Post by: Turnip Jedi


Joking,, gave up on Shannara after a few episodes, which is unusual as I'll usually watch any old guff with pretty ladies in, remember giving up on the book too so guess its not my thing

Badlands is a fun hodge poch of bonkerness hokum


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 15:37:34


Post by: Lance845


 Mr Morden wrote:
nonsense Welsh Elfs is flat out unacceptable And Kiwi Blackclads, inconceivable


Not sure if sarcastic or agreeing???

Both Shanara and Into the Badlands have a very mixed cast and it works very well - but it is post Apocalypse.

I don't know the Witcher world at all - if its supposed to be the usual quasi European medieval fantasy world than the any unusual ethnicity should be part of the character I think and part of their interactions with the majority of people they meet.

If its just a fantasy world well then anything pretty much goes unless there is a specific reason to have people of one racial background or another then you can probably just go with it.

For instance if the world is more like the Roman Empire it would be quite diverse as movement of people is quite large scale - particularly with the slave trade and the recruitment of the Legions/Auxiliaries who are normally posted well away from home.


The history of the world involves an event where many alternate realities overlap with each other and creatures and people from all those worlds begin to bleed into each other. The reason vampires, elves, dwarves, trolls, giants, wyverns, dragons etc etc etc... exist is because a long time ago this event happened and bits and pieces of every world got mashed together.

It takes place in a small corner of "our" world but with events like that race in terms of skin tone is meaningless.




Especially because the land mass and nations of the witcher are all fictional. One place is kind of based on a romanticized version of France. But it's not actually France. One place is kind of based on the nordic vikings. But it's a big island like Brittan.

The girl in question, Ciri, has the ability to travel between worlds at will and it's heavily implied that during a long absence she had been to sci fi (like energy swords and laser pistols) and wierd war ii and all kinds of places.

Literally, ANYTHING goes in the world of the witcher.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 16:06:21


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Lance845 wrote:
Literally, ANYTHING goes in the world of the witcher.
The same could be said of Marvel or DC and I highly doubt any of their black characters would be racewashed, while multiple white characters have been.

The issue isn't the racebending, it's the racism behind it that boils my noodles.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 16:13:31


Post by: Mr Morden


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Mr Morden wrote:
nonsense Welsh Elfs is flat out unacceptable And Kiwi Blackclads, inconceivable


Not sure if sarcastic or agreeing???

Both Shanara and Into the Badlands have a very mixed cast and it works very well - but it is post Apocalypse.

I don't know the Witcher world at all - if its supposed to be the usual quasi European medieval fantasy world than the any unusual ethnicity should be part of the character I think and part of their interactions with the majority of people they meet.

If its just a fantasy world well then anything pretty much goes unless there is a specific reason to have people of one racial background or another then you can probably just go with it.

For instance if the world is more like the Roman Empire it would be quite diverse as movement of people is quite large scale - particularly with the slave trade and the recruitment of the Legions/Auxiliaries who are normally posted well away from home.
I remember a CDPR dev saying something along the lines of "We're sorry we don't have a history of mass importing african slaves so our fantasy novels don't have any."


CDPR? Sorry not getting this ?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 16:30:28


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Mr Morden wrote:
CDPR? Sorry not getting this ?
CD Projekt Red, the Polish Developers of the Witcher games.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 16:58:41


Post by: Lance845


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Literally, ANYTHING goes in the world of the witcher.
The same could be said of Marvel or DC and I highly doubt any of their black characters would be racewashed, while multiple white characters have been.

The issue isn't the racebending, it's the racism behind it that boils my noodles.


And I gave you an example of a black comic character that was race bent to be white.

And the Ancient One was a Tibetan Monk stereotype that was race bent to be a one of the most clearly Irish chicks in acting.

I got another one! Michael Clark Duncan was King Pin in the Dare Devil movie. To the anger of nobody.

Again, the issue with most black characters in comics is them being black is an actual part of their character. Luke Cage wouldn't BE Luke Cage if he wasn't black. But Hiemdal? In what way does his skin color inform any aspect of his alien life/personality?

Likewise if they get around to Khamala Khan Miss Marvel, she will have to be cast as some kind of middle eastern. Her Muslum Pakistani/American heritage is a major component of her character. It informs some of the troubles she faces, the choices she makes, and the way she interacts with different people. You can't have that character without her race. So what White marvel character is defined by their whiteness? Who faces challeneges and has opinions informed by their skin tone? Only thing I can come up with is race based mobs. Anyone who is a member of the Maggia would need to be able to pass for itallian.

I am not saying that racism ISN'T behind the choice to cast Ciri as not white. But what I am saying is that we have no evidence to suggest that racism IS behind it either and assuming it is just stupid.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 17:03:25


Post by: Galas


But Idris Elba is Idris Elba. I would allow him to portray my Grandmother in a movie about my life without a second thought.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 17:48:38


Post by: Tannhauser42


I think the problem some people are having is that the casting call for Ciri is specifically for minorities. If it were an open casting call and the best actress they chose was a minority, I think people would have less of a problem.
Me, I just want a good show. I don't expect them to be obsessively true to the material and get an actress with a 22-inch waist to play Triss, for example.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 19:41:53


Post by: dogma


 Lance845 wrote:
So what White marvel character is defined by their whiteness?


Captain America. You want to see Marvel fans hit the ceiling, portray Cap as anything other than a straight-laced white boy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Me, I just want a good show. I don't expect them to be obsessively true to the material and get an actress with a 22-inch waist to play Triss, for example.


They've already cast Henry Cavill, so Amy Adams is an option.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 20:26:14


Post by: BaconCatBug


Iron Fist was pretty defined by his whiteness, and that didn't stop the far left from screeching about it when Netflix made a show.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 20:45:23


Post by: Lance845


 dogma wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
So what White marvel character is defined by their whiteness?


Captain America. You want to see Marvel fans hit the ceiling, portray Cap as anything other than a straight-laced white boy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Me, I just want a good show. I don't expect them to be obsessively true to the material and get an actress with a 22-inch waist to play Triss, for example.


They've already cast Henry Cavill, so Amy Adams is an option.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Bradley






Automatically Appended Next Post:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Iron Fist was pretty defined by his whiteness, and that didn't stop the far left from screeching about it when Netflix made a show.


And they were idiots.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 21:32:39


Post by: Bran Dawri


Point of interest: a bigger problem to me then seems to be that black comic book characters are, apparently, defined by being black and hence pretty immune to being whitewashed.
Except maybe the Warmachine, whose main characteristic is that he's a soldier.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 22:13:30


Post by: JohnnyHell


White men complaining about BAME representation opportunites again? I despair.

It’s pretty sad that people get bent out of shape about diverse casting. There are decades worth of films with just white people in if that’s what floats your boat; go watch some of those. Diversity and representation in media are important.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 23:00:46


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


I'd rather they stick to white folk the same way I'd rather Asian derived movies stick to Asian folk. The stories come from Poland and Poland isn't really a very ethnically diverse nation. That said I don't really care as long as turns out to be good anyway.

Personally I struggle to see Henry Cavill as a good Geralt, so I'm not filled with confidence already.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/09 23:07:31


Post by: djones520


Agreed. Ciri is a Slav/Nordic analog. It's going to be a real hard sale for me to believe this casting call is anything but a "we can't have an all white cast" decision.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 03:18:10


Post by: dogma




Bradley's mind was damaged because he was a victim of a test for recreating the super-soldier serum, an arc which ends with Steve Rogers being the hero.

 djones520 wrote:
Agreed. Ciri is a Slav/Nordic analog. It's going to be a real hard sale for me to believe this casting call is anything but a "we can't have an all white cast" decision.


All the significant characters in the story are Slavic, it was written by a Slav for Slavs; but Netflix is a much larger audience.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 03:56:36


Post by: Lance845


Bran Dawri wrote:
Point of interest: a bigger problem to me then seems to be that black comic book characters are, apparently, defined by being black and hence pretty immune to being whitewashed.
Except maybe the Warmachine, whose main characteristic is that he's a soldier.


Correct. It HAS been an issue.

Especially when its their ONLY defining characteristic.

A lot of characters, especially those with their origins in the 60s/70s are the worst offenders but thankfully many of them have grown into being something more then that in the last 10-20 years.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 dogma wrote:


Bradley's mind was damaged because he was a victim of a test for recreating the super-soldier serum, an arc which ends with Steve Rogers being the hero.


Its also an arc that ends with bradley being an inspiration for several generations of black americans who go on to become heroes intheir own right including his great nephew who lead the young avengers as patriot.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 05:23:06


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Lance845 wrote:
The issue isn't the racebending, it's the racism behind it that boils my noodles.
And people got all bend out of shape with that.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 07:24:34


Post by: dogma


 Lance845 wrote:

Its also an arc that ends with bradley being an inspiration for several generations of black americans who go on to become heroes intheir own right including his great nephew who lead the young avengers as patriot.


No, three generations; Eli Bradley is his great-grandson. And his arc requires MGH; an analog for HGH.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 09:37:07


Post by: Turnip Jedi


And the 'will swing left or right for attention and clicks' brigade have jumped on this so being the ambivalent contrarian I am I've decided its the best and worst thing ever, plus it could just be visual shorthand for her midiclo...errm Elf Blood


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 12:08:06


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 dogma wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
Agreed. Ciri is a Slav/Nordic analog. It's going to be a real hard sale for me to believe this casting call is anything but a "we can't have an all white cast" decision.


All the significant characters in the story are Slavic, it was written by a Slav for Slavs; but Netflix is a much larger audience.
That's largely why people are concerned. It may come as a surprise, but when people say they want character's features to remain intact it's largely because they want minimal reinterpretation of the source material.

To people who actually like The Witcher there's more concern about them butchering because they are trying to fit in to something more palatable for a dumb audience that supposedly can't see beyond their own culture.

Granted Polish culture isn't a hell of a lot different to the rest of the west, but I think it's different enough that it gives The Witcher its own flavour, I think it adds to the somewhat unique grittiness of the world and of Geralt himself.

I don't think keeping the race of characters is *the* most important thing, but it's worrying when as part of reimagining a story they're eager to throw stuff like that away, especially if it's not done well. It'd be just as weird to have asian characters recast as white folk in an asian fantasy film. People were unhappy that Matt Damon was injected in to The Great Wall, but at least there it served the purpose of providing western eyes to an eastern culture, similar to The Last Samurai. But it would be mighty odd if Katsumoto's neighbours happened to be the Jones family.

I'd also love it if they could recreate the scenery of The Witcher games, which is inspired by the more rural areas of Poland.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 17:09:11


Post by: dogma


AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Granted Polish culture isn't a hell of a lot different to the rest of the west...


Aside from the misogyny that is a hallmark of most Slavic countries; there's a reason CDPR thought the sex cards in the first game were cool.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

...but I think it's different enough that it gives The Witcher its own flavour, I think it adds to the somewhat unique grittiness of the world and of Geralt himself.


But HBO still aged up all the creepily underage girls for Game of Thrones, and that world is plenty gritty.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 20:12:41


Post by: Captain Joystick


So I spent an hour trying to say something snappy about the Ciri casting call and I'm finding I have some conflicting opinions on the subject:

On the one hand: I do not care about Ciri's race. Of all the characters in the Witcher they may have felt the need to change the race of she's probably the best choice.

On the other hand: they shouldn't have felt the need to make such a choice anyway. If they felt that the source material was problematic they should be putting in the work to comprehensively fix it, or adapt something else. No one's going to accept it if it turns out to be the shallow tokenism it appears to be.

On the third, mutant gripping hand: in light of the response to a certain Polygon article in 2015 it became clear that there was some element of the Witcher fanbase that saw the overwhelming whiteness of the setting as something to celebrate and rally behind and that element would poison their potential franchise like radioactive waste in baby formula. Netflix may well be intentionally trying to drive that element away. And are willing to risk the end result being a bland Falling-Skies style project that can make money for a few seasons than try to make a more faithful project that can only appeal to a hardcore fan demographic that will aggressively drive away mainstream interest.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/10 20:24:03


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


Im not particularly bothered that they are making the character BAME, admittedly I think it would have been best to be open to all and if a BAME actress was the best choice to go with her.

Honesty I'm more concerned for the potential actress that likely will be the target of the misguided hate.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 01:34:30


Post by: BaconCatBug


 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Im not particularly bothered that they are making the character BAME, admittedly I think it would have been best to be open to all and if a BAME actress was the best choice to go with her.

Honesty I'm more concerned for the potential actress that likely will be the target of the misguided hate.
Disliking racism is not misguided.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 02:06:47


Post by: Lance845


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Im not particularly bothered that they are making the character BAME, admittedly I think it would have been best to be open to all and if a BAME actress was the best choice to go with her.

Honesty I'm more concerned for the potential actress that likely will be the target of the misguided hate.
Disliking racism is not misguided.


Directing hate at a person who got hired for a job to make a piece of entertainment is misguided.

Claiming racism without proof of racism is misguided.

First prove someone is being racist. Then direct your hate at the people who were actually doing it. Not the actress who went in for an audition and won.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 03:11:25


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Lance845 wrote:
First prove someone is being racist. Then direct your hate at the people who were actually doing it. Not the actress who went in for an audition and won.
Did you not see the literally racist casting call?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 03:38:49


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
First prove someone is being racist. Then direct your hate at the people who were actually doing it. Not the actress who went in for an audition and won.
Did you not see the literally racist casting call?


The Actress is not responsible for the casting call, so directing your hate at a teenage girl who's only fault is accepting a role after an audition is misguided and disgusting.

Direct your hate at the producers for making the call, not the teenager for taking a job.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 03:52:06


Post by: Dreadwinter


So, if they are changing Ciri, are they also changing the Emperor?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 04:00:20


Post by: Yodhrin


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
First prove someone is being racist. Then direct your hate at the people who were actually doing it. Not the actress who went in for an audition and won.
Did you not see the literally racist casting call?


It's not really racist though is it, racism requires malice, it's merely discriminatory.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 04:46:23


Post by: Lance845


 BaconCatBug wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
First prove someone is being racist. Then direct your hate at the people who were actually doing it. Not the actress who went in for an audition and won.
Did you not see the literally racist casting call?


Again, you don't know their motivations. You don't know it's racist. They could, VERY easily, be trying to differentiate the various nations by race and already designated Skilliga(?) as the white guys. So whoever they get for Ciri could dictate the race they pick for her dad and that nation, and so on and so forth.

Asking for a BLAME actress isn't in and of itself racist and jumping to the conclusion of racism is a knee jerk idiotic move. Without more data your just making assumptions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Yodhrin wrote:


It's not really racist though is it, racism requires malice, it's merely discriminatory.


To be fair, racism doesn't REQUIRE malice.

And it's also not necessarily discriminatory. None of us are privy to their plans.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 06:12:04


Post by: BaconCatBug


 Lance845 wrote:
Again, you don't know their motivations. You don't know it's racist. They could, VERY easily, be trying to differentiate the various nations by race and already designated Skilliga(?) as the white guys. So whoever they get for Ciri could dictate the race they pick for her dad and that nation, and so on and so forth.
If you genuinely think it's not for the sake of "diversity", I have a bridge from London for sale. You're being naive in my opinion, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 12:39:46


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 dogma wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Granted Polish culture isn't a hell of a lot different to the rest of the west...


Aside from the misogyny that is a hallmark of most Slavic countries
I don't really know how more misogynistic Poles are compared to the rest of the world, but there's definitely more to the cultural differences than that, it comes across in how Poles behave and I think how The Witcher is written and portrayed as well.

there's a reason CDPR thought the sex cards in the first game were cool.
I suppose you could focus on that, or you could focus on the wide range of uniquely strong and influential female characters in the video game series.

One thing the The Witcher does well is it has female characters without them being cookie cutter token female characters or characters that could be just as equally female or male. They exist in a tough and sexist universe which can make their strengths (or their failings) more profound and meaningful.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

...but I think it's different enough that it gives The Witcher its own flavour, I think it adds to the somewhat unique grittiness of the world and of Geralt himself.


But HBO still aged up all the creepily underage girls for Game of Thrones, and that world is plenty gritty.
I don't really see how that relates to casting minorities in Witcher. Not having read the GoT books I don't know which characters were aged up, but I imagine it was done because they didn't want to be on the disturbing side of provocative or wanted to show nudity and while it might have been appropriate to do that in text in the books it's not appropriate (or legal) to do with real actors.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 14:42:31


Post by: nou


A bit of a Pole perspective here:

If one thinks, that Poles in general are misogynistic, he most certainly never met our women Large group of those women would feel offended by the very notion, that mere nude playing cards could or should offend them and such whiteknighting would be vastly more offending than said cards.

On a more serious note though: you cannot apply western racial/class/gender logic to a country with completely different history. Few of the many important facts that most of you probably don't know:
- we did not have prohibitive inheritance laws, so throughout history our women did not have problems like English women did, "Pride and Prejudice" is an exotic novel from our point of view,
- The First Polish Republic was a multicultural state which resulted in a very tight mix of traditions, religions and ethnicities (e.g. see history of so called "cities of three cultures" like Białystok and Włodawa). This mixed heritage is a key to understand modern Poland, as it was pronounced heavily later by partitions, which added another layer of deep and prevailing differences between regions. We basically have couple of distinct polish ethnicities.
- our women gained voting rights in 1918 without a fight, those were granted to them by Piłsudski within months of reestablishing Polish independence
- after IIWW we had real socialism here, which not only equalled everyone in poverty, but also in rights and responsibilities, work stations etc and making a carrer by both sexes was limited strictly by political and personal connections. During that time women also had universal right to abort pregnancy on demand. We did not have anything resembling sexism or racism of american '50s, '50s in Poland are very dark times of Stalin era political repressions.
- after transformations of 1989 there was no structural sexism in making careers, which resulted in a well described generation of "disappointed businesswomen", who were so eager to mindlessly adapt western models of life and career that a lot of them ended depressed and without families and children, which in turn resulted in a total shift of both desired lifestyle and fertility rates within later generations of polish women.
- we have one of the lowest gender pay gaps in Europe, resulting mostly and directly from career choices and maternity leaves culture, not from any structural discrimination.

As a result, we now have three major flavors of feminism here. First and most numerous is catholic feminism, renewed passionately by neocatechumenate movements - this group embraces traditional women roles in society and cherish them fully. Second group is commonsense feminism, a spiritual continuation of experiences of women during interwar, soviet occupation and post-soviet transformation era - a group of well educated and/or successful or just complex-free women, who will laugh at the very notion, that there is any structural discrimination or inequality of women in Poland. Third group is "imported feminism", a very vocal and medial group that emerged during "cultural import era" of polish '90s, when everything foreign was deemed better/of more value - they try to directly utilize western feminism narratives and philosophies, but because historical differences listed above they are viewed as hilarious or sometimes even insane by first two groups. The third group tried to establish various political entities during the last 20 years with miserable effects (around 1-3% of votes).

In turn, polish men do not really play any important role in "wars" between those different feminisms, those wars are perfectly self-sustainable. One can pretty much map geographical and media densities and probabilities of occurrence of those three kinds of feminisms. Even more so, there is no such thing as a single "desired male behavior model" as those three groups have completely different relationship goals/stereotypes, so calling any male in Poland "misogynistic" on sight or making sweeping generalizations is ignorant at minimum and straight up culturally imperialistic at maximum.

As to this whole BAME thing - many perks of characters in The Witcher series (e.g. those naturally and indisputably strong female characters AllSeingSkink mentions above) are directly tied to polish realities of the '90s projected on fantasy setting and were/are one of the reasons why Witcher games gained so much popularity. They simply weren't a typical western culture product (including CDPR production strategies/realities resulting in loads and loads of content). Pushing BAME philosophy, which is deeply western in nature and based on solely western complexes and problems would IMHO shallow this production instead of enriching it. From Central European perspective it is pushing cultural homogenization based on "wester cookie cutter", not cherishing cultural diversity... We (audience, fans and western sensibilities) have already been here, discussing nipples in Witcher games.

That being said, large internationally popular series based on Polish novel will be cherished in Poland nonetheless. Of course unless it will prove a total disaster - we already had a very, very, very, very bad Witcher TV series and latest Netflix originals aren't really award winning materials...


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 15:57:07


Post by: d-usa


It's an adaptation. Unless there is a specific reason a character HAS to be a certain race, there is no difference between having a buff Superman playing a wiry character and an Asian actor playing a white character.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 17:43:46


Post by: Yodhrin


 d-usa wrote:
It's an adaptation. Unless there is a specific reason a character HAS to be a certain race, there is no difference between having a buff Superman playing a wiry character and an Asian actor playing a white character.



Que? So if an author from an African country without a significant post-colonial presence were to write a novel drawing heavily from their local history & folklore, a very successful videogame was made based on that setting that stuck closely to that milieu, and then a TV adaptation came along to trade on the success of said game and they announced they were putting out a casting call for a character asking specifically for a white actor, you'd have no issue with that?

Besides which, again, if this was merely a case of the character's race being meaningless it would be an open call, not a specific request for a non-white actor. I think rather that it's the opposite - the show's creators are well aware that sticking to the source material does imply that the main cast would be white, and they're very conscious of how that will be received in the US so are acting to preempt critics.


EDIT: Jeebus what's up with the server today?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 18:51:25


Post by: d-usa


It’s kind of like replacing English nobles with lions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Yodhrin wrote:

Que? So if an author from an African country without a significant post-colonial presence were to write a novel drawing heavily from their local history & folklore, a very successful videogame was made based on that setting that stuck closely to that milieu, and then a TV adaptation came along to trade on the success of said game and they announced they were putting out a casting call for a character asking specifically for a white actor, you'd have no issue with that?


If the race has no bearing on the character, then no.

Besides which, again, if this was merely a case of the character's race being meaningless it would be an open call, not a specific request for a non-white actor.


The race can be meaningless as far as the story and need of the character is concerned. Which is separate from what the people involved in the production would like to have.

I think rather that it's the opposite - the show's creators are well aware that sticking to the source material does imply that the main cast would be white, and they're very conscious of how that will be received in the US so are acting to preempt critics.


Sometimes you might even have a case of people not giving a gak what critics say, and decide to hire people because they want to hire people.

They could have any number of reasons for wanting to cast a character a certain way: creative reasons, wanting to differentiate different social classes by race, create additional tensions in the story line, wanting to be more inclusive, wanting to piss off random people on the internet.

Is there any part of her background story that requires her to be white? Other than "she was white in the game", is there any part of her background that would be invalidated because she may be a different race?



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 19:10:30


Post by: AdeptSister


It is an adaptation. Netflix believes that the people who will watch the Witcher will not mind that it is not an all-white cast. I'm sure that they will make other changes as well.

We will see how it goes.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 19:11:49


Post by: d-usa


Edited, to change my mind:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Que? So if an author from an African country without a significant post-colonial presence were to write a novel drawing heavily from their local history & folklore, a very successful videogame was made based on that setting that stuck closely to that milieu, and then a TV adaptation came along to trade on the success of said game and they announced they were putting out a casting call for a character asking specifically for a white actor, you'd have no issue with that?


I've decided that I'm just going to fully embrace a double standard and go with the following:

Minorities are so underrepresented, that if some successful minority focused franchise actually makes it into the mainstream we should just leave it the hell alone and let minority people enjoy seeing other minority people in the limelight for once.

If a franchise full of white folks who are just white folks because that's the "normal" makes it to the mainstream, then I have no issue with inconsequential changes to a characters race to get some damn diversity going.

I'm sure the elves that settled a continent full of gnomes and dwarfes will understand that the people casting the roles in the movie about their fictional land where ghettos full of second-class citizens based on race already exists might throw in some added races to top it all off.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 19:17:50


Post by: Galas


People normally does not like when they change the source material for whatever reason.

For example, in the movie adaptation of Avatar: The Last Airbender, they changed the japanese-like Fire Nation with Indian actors and actresses, and then they changed the Inuit-like Water Tribe with... two white kids.
The only character properly represented was Aang. The movie was a failure for many reasons, of course, but those changes where stupid and make the movie even worse.

The example of The Lion King is very different. If this wasn't "The Witcher TV Series" but "The Witcher but it is in Africa and based in African folklore and monsters TV series" then it would make sense to all characters to be black people, even Geralt, etc...

But I don't know. If they want Ciri to be of an specific ethnicity, and then change all the people from the Empire of is father to be of the same ethnicity, then it is good. I don't know why would they do that but whatever.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 19:23:13


Post by: Captain Joystick


Dreadwinter wrote:So, if they are changing Ciri, are they also changing the Emperor?


Maybe? Maybe she ends up not being his daughter at all.

For all we know the changes to her race may or may not be plot relevant.

Actually it makes me wonder what the implications are for humanity in the setting at large. As I understand it, humans arrived with the conjunction of the spheres and their present populations are the descendants of refugees from a destroyed world. So the presence of diverse races in the makeup of the Dauk or Wozgor people would in turn be reflected in their descendants 1500 years later.

Or (and I kind of like this one), if no one else in the world looks that way, Ciri having those traits would prove someone in her family line had the means to cross over to other worlds, serving as proof she has the elder blood.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 21:14:02


Post by: nou


 d-usa wrote:
Edited, to change my mind:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Que? So if an author from an African country without a significant post-colonial presence were to write a novel drawing heavily from their local history & folklore, a very successful videogame was made based on that setting that stuck closely to that milieu, and then a TV adaptation came along to trade on the success of said game and they announced they were putting out a casting call for a character asking specifically for a white actor, you'd have no issue with that?


I've decided that I'm just going to fully embrace a double standard and go with the following:

Minorities are so underrepresented, that if some successful minority focused franchise actually makes it into the mainstream we should just leave it the hell alone and let minority people enjoy seeing other minority people in the limelight for once.

If a franchise full of white folks who are just white folks because that's the "normal" makes it to the mainstream, then I have no issue with inconsequential changes to a characters race to get some damn diversity going.

I'm sure the elves that settled a continent full of gnomes and dwarfes will understand that the people casting the roles in the movie about their fictional land where ghettos full of second-class citizens based on race already exists might throw in some added races to top it all off.


And what you described above is pretty much the case here - a story built on subtleties of central european slavic (broadly speaking) country with hell of messed up history is gaining enough popularity to spark "big players" attention and what you suggest is "so let's change it here and there to improve the compatibility of this product with a completely different culture, just because we can apply our own racial logic to it and arbitrarily judge that it looks culturally indiverse otherwise"... Literally the only reason for changing any character to non-white race here is western colonial complex and internal issues with minorities. It has nothing to do with diversity - "white folks" being the same everywhere so "there is enough material about white folks already so let in some damn diversity" is just so ignorant I don't really know how to comment it. World culture does not simply divide under neat white, yellow, red, tan, brown and black labels, you have multitudes of completely different culture codes under each and every label. The major problem with your perspective is that ultimately all you see is the most outer layer of skin colour and not ever dig deeper into religious differences, cultural differences, traditions differences or group identities that do not share any clearly distinct visual feature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Yodhrin wrote:

Que? So if an author from an African country without a significant post-colonial presence were to write a novel drawing heavily from their local history & folklore, a very successful videogame was made based on that setting that stuck closely to that milieu, and then a TV adaptation came along to trade on the success of said game and they announced they were putting out a casting call for a character asking specifically for a white actor, you'd have no issue with that?


If the race has no bearing on the character, then no.


And here lies a huge can of worms - in a racially uniform society any person with a clearly different race will experience life in totally different way, resulting in totally different character. So when you write "if the race has no bearing on the character" as it was a simple "color swap" you already assume US-like society structure where the mix of races is high enough so that every growing up experience is possible, thus making any character traits plausible for any skin colour. Black Ciri if not followed by black Emperor and black society it grew from makes Ciri either unbelievable or a kind of "clearly unique freak" by the in-world standards. And that is my main gripe with this - you are willing to forfeit integrity of the author's work and background in the name of totally foreign perspective.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 21:26:12


Post by: Galas


Spoiler:
nou wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Edited, to change my mind:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Que? So if an author from an African country without a significant post-colonial presence were to write a novel drawing heavily from their local history & folklore, a very successful videogame was made based on that setting that stuck closely to that milieu, and then a TV adaptation came along to trade on the success of said game and they announced they were putting out a casting call for a character asking specifically for a white actor, you'd have no issue with that?


I've decided that I'm just going to fully embrace a double standard and go with the following:

Minorities are so underrepresented, that if some successful minority focused franchise actually makes it into the mainstream we should just leave it the hell alone and let minority people enjoy seeing other minority people in the limelight for once.

If a franchise full of white folks who are just white folks because that's the "normal" makes it to the mainstream, then I have no issue with inconsequential changes to a characters race to get some damn diversity going.

I'm sure the elves that settled a continent full of gnomes and dwarfes will understand that the people casting the roles in the movie about their fictional land where ghettos full of second-class citizens based on race already exists might throw in some added races to top it all off.


And what you described above is pretty much the case here - a story built on subtleties of central european slavic (broadly speaking) country with hell of messed up history is gaining enough popularity to spark "big players" attention and what you suggest is "so let's change it here and there to improve the compatibility of this product with a completely different culture, just because we can apply our own racial logic to it and arbitrarily judge that it looks culturally indiverse otherwise"... Literally the only reason for changing any character to non-white race here is western colonial complex and internal issues with minorities. It has nothing to do with diversity - "white folks" being the same everywhere so "there is enough material about white folks already so let in some damn diversity" is just so ignorant I don't really know how to comment it. World culture does not simply divide under neat white, yellow, red, tan, brown and black labels, you have multitudes of completely different culture codes under each and every label. The major problem with your perspective is that ultimately all you see is the most outer layer of skin colour and not ever dig deeper into religious differences, cultural differences, traditions differences or group identities that do not share any clearly distinct visual feature.


To be honest, changing stuff to make it appeal more to the target audience is something that has been done forever. Just look at The Simpsons, and how in islamic countries Homer does not drinks beer, or characters like Apu are just erased.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 22:12:04


Post by: nou


 Galas wrote:
Spoiler:
nou wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Edited, to change my mind:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Que? So if an author from an African country without a significant post-colonial presence were to write a novel drawing heavily from their local history & folklore, a very successful videogame was made based on that setting that stuck closely to that milieu, and then a TV adaptation came along to trade on the success of said game and they announced they were putting out a casting call for a character asking specifically for a white actor, you'd have no issue with that?


I've decided that I'm just going to fully embrace a double standard and go with the following:

Minorities are so underrepresented, that if some successful minority focused franchise actually makes it into the mainstream we should just leave it the hell alone and let minority people enjoy seeing other minority people in the limelight for once.

If a franchise full of white folks who are just white folks because that's the "normal" makes it to the mainstream, then I have no issue with inconsequential changes to a characters race to get some damn diversity going.

I'm sure the elves that settled a continent full of gnomes and dwarfes will understand that the people casting the roles in the movie about their fictional land where ghettos full of second-class citizens based on race already exists might throw in some added races to top it all off.


And what you described above is pretty much the case here - a story built on subtleties of central european slavic (broadly speaking) country with hell of messed up history is gaining enough popularity to spark "big players" attention and what you suggest is "so let's change it here and there to improve the compatibility of this product with a completely different culture, just because we can apply our own racial logic to it and arbitrarily judge that it looks culturally indiverse otherwise"... Literally the only reason for changing any character to non-white race here is western colonial complex and internal issues with minorities. It has nothing to do with diversity - "white folks" being the same everywhere so "there is enough material about white folks already so let in some damn diversity" is just so ignorant I don't really know how to comment it. World culture does not simply divide under neat white, yellow, red, tan, brown and black labels, you have multitudes of completely different culture codes under each and every label. The major problem with your perspective is that ultimately all you see is the most outer layer of skin colour and not ever dig deeper into religious differences, cultural differences, traditions differences or group identities that do not share any clearly distinct visual feature.


To be honest, changing stuff to make it appeal more to the target audience is something that has been done forever. Just look at The Simpsons, and how in islamic countries Homer does not drinks beer, or characters like Apu are just erased.


That would be fine analogues to the case of multitude versions of The Witcher series existing that cater to different audiences. The notion that global web streaming platform is/should be somehow exclusively or even majorly US audience oriented is... dubious.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 22:24:51


Post by: Galas


Are you surprised that modern "global" culture is basically all cut by US standards?



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 22:36:10


Post by: d-usa


nou wrote:

. The notion that global web streaming platform is/should be somehow exclusively or even majorly US audience oriented is... dubious.


That's usually what happens when a US company with a vast majority of subscribers in North America and Central European countries where diversity is seen as a plus markets themselves, and the programs they produce, to the majority of their audience.

Maybe PolandFlix can produce a version that is more ethnocentric to Poland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
Are you surprised that modern "global" culture is basically all cut by US standards?



It depends on who is producing it and who they are targeting.

If there is money in catering to "US standards", people who want to make money will cater to "US standards".


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 22:52:43


Post by: nou


 Galas wrote:
Are you surprised that modern "global" culture is basically all cut by US standards?



No, I'm surprised that some people find it natural, that it should be while also being vocal about cultural diversity. Those two standpoints just don't add up from non-US perspective. And I would be cautious about what exactly "modern global culture" looks like - the biggest film industry in the world is Bollywood simply by the size of native audience and a shift to far east oriented audiences is already visible in major Hollywood productions (and global Box Office results, see Warcraft success in China), so I think that times of uncontended US culture domination are fading away. Europe is still very much under combined US/UK influence, Poland even more so than e.g. Czech Republic is, but there is already visible shift caused by global streaming platforms - HBO co-funds a lot of local productions that are then distributed worldwide and I think that is exactly because over homogenization of content is not healthy for them financially. And both German and France film industries are still quite present, at least here in Europe. On top of that, overly US centric construction of Netflix productions is already sparking a lot of discussion, be it this thread about The Witcher or as it was with Netflix's Marvel series, which have decreasing audience here in Poland after focusing too much on unrelatable, US exclusive problems. There was A LOT of hype for first Daredevil and it was a steady decline from there, except for Punisher spike.

And the biggest surprise (at least for me personally) on how exactly "global" Western culture is not at all that global comes from Asia, where Hitler is actually a pop icon. Just go google about "Nazi Chic" style.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 23:02:20


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Captain Joystick wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:So, if they are changing Ciri, are they also changing the Emperor?


Maybe? Maybe she ends up not being his daughter at all.


I'm curious as to how they'll address The White Flame Dancing on the Graves of His Enemies's relationship to her. It was a big moment in the books. Are they just going to hope nobody will notice it's the same actor? Or just play it straight and accept that it won't be a surprise for the audience?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 23:12:57


Post by: AdeptSister


Some US movies have already starting catering to the Chinese audience. Like D-USA said, they go where the money is. For the US audience, diversity sells.

Netflix believes that more people that will not care about Ciri's race than people who will be upset about it.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 23:19:48


Post by: nou


 d-usa wrote:
nou wrote:


That's usually what happens when a US company with a vast majority of subscribers in North America and Central European countries where diversity is seen as a plus markets themselves, and the programs they produce, to the majority of their audience.


Do separate Netflix distribution and Netflix production here. At least here in polish part of Central Europe, Netflix is popular mostly for affordable legal distribution of blockbuster movies, not for it's own productions (except for few major ones like Daredevil mentioned above or Stranger Things) and most certainly not for their pushed diversity and inclusiveness. It's just becoming more and more unrelatable, and one of the best examples to be made here is that even Star Trek fans couldn't stand all that forced PC in STiscovery. We do like diversity, read back all my posts again - we just don't narrowly define diversity by skin color and actually pay more attention to "diversity in details" of character construction or real cultural background (nicely summed up by AllSeeingSkink above in case of female characters in The Witcher).

But now I'm starting to go in circles, so it's high time I end my involvement in this thread, as I'm not even particularily fond of Sapkowski and his works to discuss them at such lenghts and I don't really want this thread to be "politics locked".


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/11 23:54:50


Post by: Lance845


I personally love the argument that its a polish source material with polish influences who are upset that ciri will probably be not white while exactly zero polish actors have been mentioned.

But hey, henry cavil is close enough or something? Right?

You either want all the polish everything to stay in tact and pure and want an all polish cast or it just doesnt fething mater.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 03:05:55


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Now all I see is this as the new Ciri.

 Lance845 wrote:
But hey, henry cavil is close enough or something? Right?
The same people who think that casting for diversity is an inherent good are the same types of people who believe that all white people are the same (and evil).


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 04:04:16


Post by: Lance845


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The same people who think that casting for diversity is an inherent good are the same types of people who believe that all white people are the same (and evil).


What a load of gak.

I think diversity is fine as long as race isn't actually a part of the character.

For instance..

This...



is a white guy who was cast to do the native american version of this...



Thats not okay.

But this guy...



playing this guy...



was great casting.

I never said all white people were the same. But I don't see anyone in here arguing about the polish basis for the Witcher looking for a polish cast. I see them looking for a WHITE cast.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 05:04:21


Post by: nou


@Lance: There are two perfectly valid reasons why no one in Poland is fighting for polish based cast. One is that our film industry/actor base is tiny and there are no good and proven candidates for any of the lead characters that would fit. You can google memes with Karolak or Szyc as Geralt, because we have so reiterative casts in Polish films... The second one I hinted above - we had one attempt already at producing The Witcher TV series and it was miserable embarassment with rubber dragon. No modern Polish actor has any experience in playing fantasy or sci-fi characters, because our film industry stopped producing such films after 1989. We had exactly one reasonable costume movie of adequate period in the last 20 years (Ogniem i Mieczem) and guess what - exactly same actors (Żebrowski and Zamachowski) were responsible for terrible, terrible Geralt and Jaskier... So next time you don't understand why nobody is doing what you imagine they should, you might first ask why.

And FYI, I personally think Mads Mikkelsen would be much better Geralt than Cavil, because of his nordic origin being closer and more adequate for this role portrayal, but impossibly at the age he was when he played in King Arthur...

And yes, we have absolutely no problem whatsoever here in Poland with all white cast in a series based on Slavic, Celtic and Nordic cultural heritage. Forced racial diversity is simply that much western thing, that we have exactly zero complexes about it. As I said earlier, for us the devil lies in details of plausible portrayal, not in skin colour. When casting Ogniem i Mieczem mentioned above, we had eastern actor casted as Bohun for believable main Cossack character, because the lack of proper accent would spoil nuances of the story.

On the last note - a rumour emerged today, that one (obviously and dreadfully white) polish actress will in fact be audienced for Ciri, so this whole "BAME only call" thing sounds like fake news.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 05:48:42


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


I would love to see some good Polish actors in it... that said I don’t know of any good Polish actors and what minimal Polish cinema I’ve seen hasn’t been overly impressive. Maybe I’m just being horribly culture-ist and nou can correct me if this is miles off, but I don’t think Poles would place a high emphasis on acting (unlike many other places, like most of the west, where actors are idolized and many kids grow up wanting to be in movies/TV).

But in the end I want them to make stuff as close to the source material as possible because the further they stray from it the greater the chance of them fething it up. If they have to change the essence of the story, characters, world and so on because they’re scared western audiences won’t be able to cope, at that point I’d rather they just make another fantasy series inspired by but not attempting to be The Witcher.

It’ll be funny if the “minority” actress they cast to play Ciri is actually a Pole, though.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 05:51:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Lance845 wrote:
I think diversity is fine as long as race isn't actually a part of the character.
But diversity for the sake of diversity - under which this would fall - is just dressed up tokenism. Tokenism serves no one.

 Lance845 wrote:
For instance..

This...

is a white guy who was cast to do the native american version of this...

Thats not okay.
One thing people often miss is the "Hollywood" of it all.

Depp was hired because he was popular with Disney and they wanted him to his "Weirdo Jack Sparrow" routine that they thought was still popular. Scarlet Johansson, so use a different film, was hired for Ghost in the Shell not because of some anti-Japanese bent on the half of the movie makers, but because she's Scarlet Johansson, one of the most bankable and well known movies stars in the world. Michael B. Jordan, to use yet another example, was cast as Jonny Storm in Fan4stic because he was up and coming and "so hot right now"* and not, as many might thing, because he was black and therefore "diversity".

Hollywood is risk averse. They will do what they can to get the best return with as little outlay as possible. Depp was hired because he's popular, not to insult Native Americans or be, for lack of a better term, a white guy in 'Red Face'. It may have been stupid - hell, from what I've heard the entire movie was stupid and was another rockblock in Armie Hammer having an actual career - but it was done because Hollywood saw $$$ in Depp and went for it.


*Ignore the human torch pun possibilities there.

 Lance845 wrote:
But this guy...

playing this guy...
... doesn't matter. King Pin can be anyone. His look - outside of being enormous and bald - isn't intrinsic to the character. Michael Clarke Duncan is, or rather was, huge. And bald. Done. Easy.

 Lance845 wrote:
I never said all white people were the same. But I don't see anyone in here arguing about the polish basis for the Witcher looking for a polish cast. I see them looking for a WHITE cast.
I never said you did, but I was making a general statement.

The people who want "diversity" (ie. forced tokenism) are the same type of people who champion movies like Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians as being 'diverse', when they're not (they feature near 100% single race casts... that's not diverse!).

And if we're going down the rabbit hole of "Only Polish people can play Polish people!" then we're ignoring the "Acting" aspect. This is when you see gay actor lobbies go nuts when a gay character is played by a non-gay actor (Jack Whitehall being a recent example), or, even more insane, when a gay actor plays a non-gay character (eg. people yelling at Jonathan Groff a few years back for having the temerity to play a straight character on Glee).

Lots of various groups of Asians can play other Asians. We see lots of Koreans playing Chinese, and vice versa. That's pretty normal. We don't see many Vietnameses playing Syrians though. Or BAMEs playing Poles.


My point, in all this rambling, is that there is far more to a person than just their race, gender or sexuality, but so many people see that as the single defining characteristic of a person. "But then Ciri can be black!" No, she can't. Because she isn't. She's reflective of the world she's in, and that world is very, very white.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 06:39:10


Post by: Lance845


nou wrote:@Lance: There are two perfectly valid reasons why no one in Poland is fighting for polish based cast. One is that our film industry/actor base is tiny and there are no good and proven candidates for any of the lead characters that would fit. You can google memes with Karolak or Szyc as Geralt, because we have so reiterative casts in Polish films... The second one I hinted above - we had one attempt already at producing The Witcher TV series and it was miserable embarassment with rubber dragon. No modern Polish actor has any experience in playing fantasy or sci-fi characters, because our film industry stopped producing such films after 1989. We had exactly one reasonable costume movie of adequate period in the last 20 years (Ogniem i Mieczem) and guess what - exactly same actors (Żebrowski and Zamachowski) were responsible for terrible, terrible Geralt and Jaskier... So next time you don't understand why nobody is doing what you imagine they should, you might first ask why.

And FYI, I personally think Mads Mikkelsen would be much better Geralt than Cavil, because of his nordic origin being closer and more adequate for this role portrayal, but impossibly at the age he was when he played in King Arthur...

And yes, we have absolutely no problem whatsoever here in Poland with all white cast in a series based on Slavic, Celtic and Nordic cultural heritage. Forced racial diversity is simply that much western thing, that we have exactly zero complexes about it. As I said earlier, for us the devil lies in details of plausible portrayal, not in skin colour. When casting Ogniem i Mieczem mentioned above, we had eastern actor casted as Bohun for believable main Cossack character, because the lack of proper accent would spoil nuances of the story.

On the last note - a rumour emerged today, that one (obviously and dreadfully white) polish actress will in fact be audienced for Ciri, so this whole "BAME only call" thing sounds like fake news.


Oh believe me I already knew the acting pool from which to draw from was abysmal for an all polish cast. That doesn't change my point. If you don't care whether they are polish or not then you shouldn't care if they are white or not. The stories don't take place in our world and they don't take place in Poland. It would be like being upset that Ford Prefect was played by a black guy in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy movie instead of a british guy. He's an alien. His race isn't a part of the character. It doesn't matter.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
I think diversity is fine as long as race isn't actually a part of the character.
But diversity for the sake of diversity - under which this would fall - is just dressed up tokenism. Tokenism serves no one.

 Lance845 wrote:
For instance..

This...

is a white guy who was cast to do the native american version of this...

Thats not okay.
One thing people often miss is the "Hollywood" of it all.

Depp was hired because he was popular with Disney and they wanted him to his "Weirdo Jack Sparrow" routine that they thought was still popular. Scarlet Johansson, so use a different film, was hired for Ghost in the Shell not because of some anti-Japanese bent on the half of the movie makers, but because she's Scarlet Johansson, one of the most bankable and well known movies stars in the world. Michael B. Jordan, to use yet another example, was cast as Jonny Storm in Fan4stic because he was up and coming and "so hot right now"* and not, as many might thing, because he was black and therefore "diversity".

Hollywood is risk averse. They will do what they can to get the best return with as little outlay as possible. Depp was hired because he's popular, not to insult Native Americans or be, for lack of a better term, a white guy in 'Red Face'. It may have been stupid - hell, from what I've heard the entire movie was stupid and was another rockblock in Armie Hammer having an actual career - but it was done because Hollywood saw $$$ in Depp and went for it.


*Ignore the human torch pun possibilities there.


It doesn't matter WHY Depp was hired. His portrayal as that character was racist. And it took work away from a group that rarely gets work.

Scarlet Johansson was hired to play a robot body with a japanese person brain in it. It's not the same thing. She wasn't doing "yellow face". Michael B Jordan, again, played a fine version of Johnny Storm because his race isn't a part of who he is and he's a legit good actor. Had the movie been better it could have been a better Human Torch than Chris Evan's.

Whether "hollywood" intended insult or not is meaningless. It's insulting. And whether Depp likes a paycheck or not, at a certain point a person should have enough integrity to not do "race face" on film for millions to see.


 Lance845 wrote:
But this guy...

playing this guy...
... doesn't matter. King Pin can be anyone. His look - outside of being enormous and bald - isn't intrinsic to the character. Michael Clarke Duncan is, or rather was, huge. And bald. Done. Easy.


Agreed. Thats why I made the example to compare to the one above. Ciri, Geralt, and every character in the Witcher don't need to be Polish, or Slavic, or Nordic, or White. They come from an alien fantasy world and their skin color isn't a part of their character.

 Lance845 wrote:
I never said all white people were the same. But I don't see anyone in here arguing about the polish basis for the Witcher looking for a polish cast. I see them looking for a WHITE cast.
I never said you did, but I was making a general statement.

The people who want "diversity" (ie. forced tokenism) are the same type of people who champion movies like Black Panther and Crazy Rich Asians as being 'diverse', when they're not (they feature near 100% single race casts... that's not diverse!).

And if we're going down the rabbit hole of "Only Polish people can play Polish people!" then we're ignoring the "Acting" aspect. This is when you see gay actor lobbies go nuts when a gay character is played by a non-gay actor (Jack Whitehall being a recent example), or, even more insane, when a gay actor plays a non-gay character (eg. people yelling at Jonathan Groff a few years back for having the temerity to play a straight character on Glee).

Lots of various groups of Asians can play other Asians. We see lots of Koreans playing Chinese, and vice versa. That's pretty normal. We don't see many Vietnameses playing Syrians though. Or BAMEs playing Poles.


My point, in all this rambling, is that there is far more to a person than just their race, gender or sexuality, but so many people see that as the single defining characteristic of a person. "But then Ciri can be black!" No, she can't. Because she isn't. She's reflective of the world she's in, and that world is very, very white.



There is a significant difference between tokenism and ensuring that diversity exists in work opportunities. I never saw or have had any interest in Crazy Rich Asians so I can't comment on that. But Black Panther IS diverse in the INDUSTRY because it's a almost entirely black cast movie that is not leaning on their Blackness as some kind of plot element or joke. It wasn't like Uncle Drew where it's just a black comedy with black people "for black people". It was JUST a super hero movie like any other movie that just so happened to have a primarily black cast. Something that is basically unheard of. It is noteworthy in it's rarity. And it's diverse in the industry because it was an opportunity for a large group of actors to play parts in a kind of movie they don't get chances to play.

Again, nothing requires the world of the Witcher to be "very very white". It doesn't define the world. It doesn't shape it's characters. It isn't needed to tell it's stories. And it's a stupid thing to hold onto when any actor could do the job regardless of skin color. It's not tokenism to open a door that is traditionally closed when you have no good reason to have it closed to begin with. The only thing needed would be ensuring that people can recognize actual family ties. (Ciri and her dad would need to be the same race) Ciri being black is no different from Michael Clark Duncan being King Pin. All they really need is a girl that can portray the attitude and energy she brings to the table and have a chemistry on screen with Geralt that conveys their relationship well. Her real world heritage beyond that point is completely inconsequential.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 07:39:47


Post by: BertBert


 AdeptSister wrote:


Netflix believes that more people that will not care about Ciri's race than people who will be upset about it.


This is the crux of this issue. It's pandering to a vocal minority that dominates entertainment media. No consideration is given to quality and authenticity.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 10:51:58


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Lance845 wrote:
Again, nothing requires the world of the Witcher to be "very very white".
Doesn't "require" the world to be white.... but it is white and there are tangible reasons it's white so I'd prefer they don't actively work to change the world.

I'd like to think most people aren't so shallow as to be incapable of understanding the world beyond their own doorstep and can appreciate that a world full of white folk written by Poles in Poland makes as much sense as a world full of asians written by asians in asia makes sense, even if it's maybe not the world they happen to live in.

As I said earlier, I don't think the race of the characters is terribly important, but it is what it is and I worry that changing it is the start of a watering down or pansification of the world/stories/characters.
Her real world heritage beyond that point is completely inconsequential.
Yeah so lets just keep the heritage she already has instead of trying to change it.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 11:32:28


Post by: BaconCatBug


"It doesn't matter what race they are as long as they aren't white." That's what the casting call implies. Simple rule, if you replace white with any other race, and it sounds racist, it's racist.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 13:01:57


Post by: nou


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I would love to see some good Polish actors in it... that said I don’t know of any good Polish actors and what minimal Polish cinema I’ve seen hasn’t been overly impressive. Maybe I’m just being horribly culture-ist and nou can correct me if this is miles off, but I don’t think Poles would place a high emphasis on acting (unlike many other places, like most of the west, where actors are idolized and many kids grow up wanting to be in movies/TV).

But in the end I want them to make stuff as close to the source material as possible because the further they stray from it the greater the chance of them fething it up. If they have to change the essence of the story, characters, world and so on because they’re scared western audiences won’t be able to cope, at that point I’d rather they just make another fantasy series inspired by but not attempting to be The Witcher.

It’ll be funny if the “minority” actress they cast to play Ciri is actually a Pole, though.


Oh, actors are celebrities in Poland and there are lots of people with "drive for the big screen". What we don't have is US Broadway or UK Shakespearean theaters equivalence of "acting benchmark". Up until maybe early 2000s most of our actors were schooled professionals, and we have some great movies from 1980s and 1990s, (and some great voice acting performances in dubbed animations - our version of Shrek is soo much better than original) but with post-soviet transformation came "cultural import" era I mentioned above, resulting in a huge shift of TV standards and programming, and spawning a lot of instant celebrities. Basically we have huge loads of "kardashians" and precious few good actors. What further disassembled polish praise of "old school" polish actors was their active involvement in politics, with strong "anti polish, anti peasant" attitude being the most common and nowadays their engagement in anti government narrative is even more backfiring. That is what you get with strong reliance on government funding in culture.

But, as I said, we have precious few good actors, that surely deserve wider recognition. One of them is Tomasz Kot - you might have heard rumours about him being a supposed reason of quarrel between Boyd and Craig over newest Bond villain casting. But the whole list I could make here would end with about ten actors (half of them in their grandfather years now) and maybe five actresses tops.

If you're interested in good polish cinema though, I can recommend few more or less classics: Pamiętnik Znaleziony w Saragossie (a black and white costume masterpiece), Hydrozagadka, Rejs (two great excercises in absurd humour but maybe too hermetic to fully understand by foreigners as they are satires on communism times society), Sexmisja (gratest polish s-f about women only postapocalyptic society), Miś (cult classic, a profile of late communist era Poland absurds), Dzień Świra (one man show of Marek Kondrat), Kiler (one of the most iconic polish comedies of '90) and from more recent times Bogowie (a story of polish artificial heart program, featuring Tomasz Kot), Ostatnia Rodzina (a trully unique and very dark film based on dailly audiovisual diary/archive of Zdzisław Beksiński) and a bit on the side Twój Vincent (Loving Vincent, an experimental animation about Van Gogh life and work).


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 13:09:51


Post by: Captain Joystick


H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
I think diversity is fine as long as race isn't actually a part of the character.
But diversity for the sake of diversity - under which this would fall - is just dressed up tokenism.

It is not.

Tokenism is about pretending to be diverse. It's the difference between having a show about a space ship crew of all different races at various positions of importance with speaking roles and having one black regular on a cop show that ostensibly takes place in a city with a large black population. Diversity for diversity's sake is so perfectly fine that tokenism pretends to be it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:My point, in all this rambling, is that there is far more to a person than just their race, gender or sexuality, but so many people see that as the single defining characteristic of a person. "But then Ciri can be black!" No, she can't. Because she isn't. She's reflective of the world she's in, and that world is very, very white.

Right, but one of the caveats of that world is that people can leave it. That she can leave it, that her ancestors could leave it.

So they could (could!) have a plot point around this.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 13:55:37


Post by: d-usa


Not having read the books, is the race of the main characters mentioned in them?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 14:13:51


Post by: Lance845


BertBert wrote:
 AdeptSister wrote:


Netflix believes that more people that will not care about Ciri's race than people who will be upset about it.


This is the crux of this issue. It's pandering to a vocal minority that dominates entertainment media. No consideration is given to quality and authenticity.


Oh yeah? What data do you have that the people who have netflix and either don't know or don't care about race in the witcher are a minority? What data do you have that casting non-white equals a lack of quality?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
Not having read the books, is the race of the main characters mentioned in them?



Ive only read a couple of the stories so far.

The titular Witcher is called the white wolf because hes from the school of the wolf and an albino with white hair. Witchers are basically the spartan program from halo for hunting monsters.

Taken as children, trained extensively both physically and mentally, goes through a process that mjtates their body and augments them with faster reflexes and cat like eyes and gak. Most of them dont survive the mutation.

Geralt is that albino.

Ciri is a little girl he meets and adopts.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 14:40:52


Post by: Tannhauser42


 d-usa wrote:
Not having read the books, is the race of the main characters mentioned in them?


Yes, they're called humans. Because the racism in The Witcher is literal racism of humans against elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, dragons, and anything else. Even witchers are hated and distrusted for being mutant freaks.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 14:44:39


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Dislike all BAME casting. Or any casting that tries to exclude or alienate for a non-narrative reason. We need more raceblind and genderblind castings, not just excluding white men.

I'm not attached to the Witcher franchise, so I'm not really that bothered about Ciri's race. And honestly, I don't think I would be anyways. Select the best actor/actress for any role, based on what the casting director wants for that character. There's no reason for a BAME casting, unless you're specifically wanting to exclude white performers. Why would that be? Well, it's either for a narrative reason (which is fine - director's vision), or forced "diversity" - which, if it were reversed, would undoubtedly be seen as a form of racism or cultural appropriation by some.

As a previous example: Hermione being portrayed by a black actress in the stage show is fine. What was an issue was Rowling making up claims of "Hermione's race was never specified": it was. If she'd said "in my books, she's white, but Noma Dumezweni is the best person to portray her for this show", then that would be infinitely better. I don't know if this was a raceblind casting, but I think it was.

Fundamentally, unless there was a reason to make Ciri a different race, demanded by the narrative, then I disagree with this BAME casting, and all BAME castings.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 15:01:38


Post by: nou


 d-usa wrote:
Not having read the books, is the race of the main characters mentioned in them?


Polish authors do not have a habit of directly mentioning race, we don't have racially mixed society so there is no need to do so unless you explicitly want someone to be non-white. But they usually provide detailed enough visual descriptions that are enough to construct clear mental image.

Geralt is as white as it gets, being white haired albino.
Ciri is basically young female version of Geralt, with the same silver/white hair, vivid green eyes, and few elvish traits like thin nose and long fingers - features that are all important in building a recognition of closeness between those two characters.
Triss is very "iconic redhead beauty" with 22 inch waist, deep blue eyes and ruddy cheeks. Those features are basis for lot of this character identity and behavior.
Yennefer is pale skinned, with raven hair and violet eyes. Again, very distinct set of features making her stand out from the crowd, but not in an obvious and direct manner that would support making her non-white. Nevertheless, this would be the best character to swap skin color if and only if you would make background population racially mixed. The biggest issue I can see with her is that she is an ugly hunchback magically turned near-pretty, which could provide basis for racial rant...
Jaskier is a very handsome blond haired guy who could pass for an elf on his better days.

One important thing to note - first Witcher story is from 1986, when Poland was still a communist country and racial issues didn't even exist as a context in our culture. The whole rest of Witcher saga was written in the '90s, when our societal concerns where focused on post-soviet transformation and the only visible migrant minority was Vietnamese. Direct racial context was introduced first in polish public discourse in 2000, when we had first naturalized football player of Nigerian origin and since then polish left wing tried very hard to import western racial discrimination issues, but due to very small percentage of people of color the whole subject was very "token" in nature up until very recently, when polish medical schools opened wide to Asian and Indian students, which now form majority of non-white population in Poland, but Vietnamese remain the only significant racial minority that reached second generation.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 15:46:18


Post by: d-usa


So the only distinct whiteness, and lack of non-white humans, comes not from the book but from previous adaptations.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 15:58:42


Post by: nou


 d-usa wrote:
So the only distinct whiteness, and lack of non-white humans, comes not from the book but from previous adaptations.



How you arrived at this conclusion when I have just wrote you a list of visual traits of characters that are naturally linked to white race and explained why seeking for direct quote about race in Sapkowsky works is utterly ignorant about the context of his works?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 16:07:12


Post by: d-usa


Yes.

Because an albino Witcher and a lady with elf-like features and also having white hair and looking like the albino is the only thing you’ve mentioned.

Are the dwarves in Poland mountain or cave dwarves? What race are your elves? Are your vampires all white as well?

It’s a fantasy novel in a fantasy world influenced by polish stories. It’s not a factual history of Poland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the 90s post-Soviet content of the stories:

I’m guessing a large part of the target audience doesn’t give a gak about the societal issues in post-Soviet Poland in the 90s.

So just like the author did by writing in a way that reflected current societal issues and struggles in his story relevant to his target audience, the writers and producers of “The Witcher Worldwide - 25 years later than post-Soviet Poland” are making decisions in order to make the story relevant to current societal issues and events.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 16:50:24


Post by: nou


 d-usa wrote:
Yes.

Because an albino Witcher and a lady with elf-like features and also having white hair and looking like the albino is the only thing you’ve mentioned.

Are the dwarves in Poland mountain or cave dwarves? What race are your elves? Are your vampires all white as well?

It’s a fantasy novel in a fantasy world influenced by polish stories. It’s not a factual history of Poland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the 90s post-Soviet content of the stories:

I’m guessing a large part of the target audience doesn’t give a gak about the societal issues in post-Soviet Poland in the 90s.

So just like the author did by writing in a way that reflected current societal issues and struggles in his story relevant to his target audience, the writers and producers of “The Witcher Worldwide - 25 years later than post-Soviet Poland” are making decisions in order to make the story relevant to current societal issues and events.


I cannot even imagine the scale of anti racist and anti cultural imperialism outburst your post would ignite if you would substitute Poland here for any African or Asian country and their major cultural achievement. You should seriously reevaluate your views on what exactly constitutes ethnic supremacism.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 16:58:45


Post by: d-usa


Edit: just in case it came across like "I" don't give a gak about issues in post-soviet Poland in the 90s:

Modern adaptations of older works always make changes to make the issues that are present in the older works relevant to audiences consuming the adaptation today.

"O" was an adaptation that set the characters in a modern US high school rather than Venice. Romeo & Juliet has been featured with guns instead of swords, gnomes instead of humans, and any other possible variation you could think of. HBO's adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 had a black Montag for whatever reason and they featured Social Media which wasn't present in the original book. Many adaptations of stories that were influenced by the Cold War against the Soviet Union now frequently feature China or terrorists as the constant threat, because that's what society can relate to now.

The Witcher is not a completely original story. The author took old themes, created a new setting and compelling characters, sprinkled in things that made it relevant to what he knew and what his audience could relate to, and had success. Now people still like the themes, the setting, and the characters, but maybe a large part of the audience is not familiar with what it was like to grow up in in Poland in 1993. They know what it is like in 2018 where they are now, so let's sprinkle in some current issues that would impact and influence the story in a way they could relate to.

It could also be a simple issue like "Let's make the houses more distinct, to show that the racial struggles isn't just between "human" and "others". Maybe they just want an easy lazy visual to keep houses separate. Maybe it's their way of making the big races different as well. From my vast experience with the series via Wiki, she might be looking a bit elvish? Maybe the elves will be played by characters of the same race as her? Maybe it's just a lazy way of making her be the one person with Elder Blood?

Who knows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nou wrote:

I cannot even imagine the scale of anti racist and anti cultural imperialism outburst your post would ignite if you would substitute Poland here for any African or Asian country and their major cultural achievement. You should seriously reevaluate your views on what exactly constitutes ethnic supremacism.


See above.

Protip:

You guys didn't invent Elves, and I bet there was at least one non-white person in Poland between 1456-1992.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 18:05:58


Post by: nou


So let me explain to you why exactly as close as possible adaptation is so important to Poles. After 1989 we were basically culturally colonized in every possible industry. The Witcher games success, CDPR growth and then Techland success were pretty much first proofs that our companies can in fact compete on equal footing with international industry giants. That The Witcher games were so succesfull without any racial or cultural alterations whatsoever was also proof, that our modern culture can in fact provide a widely acclaimed product that do not directy cater to western trends. CDPR success was realy major news and made entire generation proud and hopefull for the future. Now with the whole BAME thing a lot of poles felt threaten that it'll be robbed from a major, recent and very, very rare achievement.

As to your latest post - the very nature of well defined ramifications of fantasy genre makes every story in such setting feel generic, so your post was rather trivial. But in turn this is exactly why we should preserve anything that does succesfull fantasy stories unique among the crowd of other fantasy stories.

And one last time - US internal issues are not universal modern society issues; UK internal issues are not universal modern society issues; no single coutry issues are universal modern society issues and it's high time to stop insisting otherwise and building false image of the world. The very idea of sprinkling everything with modern US issues in the name of ill-defined diversity is what makes latest Netflix productions so predictable, boring and unrelatable for large swathes of non US audience. As I wrote earlier - HBO in fact makes much better job at providing true cultural diversity by sponsoring VERY local series and movies and then distributing them worldwide. I mentioned Ostatnia Rodzina as a recommended viewing for AllSeeingSkink earlier, and what makes it even possible is exactly HBO involvement in production and distribution of this trully unique endavour. What is funny is that Black Panther was brougt up exactly as an argument for "racially and culturally pure" productions as positive example of diversity within industry while the exact same approach to The Witcher seems to be unbearable for some...


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 18:15:58


Post by: d-usa


It may be important to Poles.

But Poles aren't the main target audience for this production. It is a major international company making a major international production of a franchise for major international distribution.

nou wrote:
Now with the whole BAME thing a lot of poles felt threaten that it'll be robbed from a major, recent and very, very rare achievement.


That says more about Poland than the success of The Witcher ever could.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:02:02


Post by: nou


 d-usa wrote:
It may be important to Poles.

But Poles aren't the main target audience for this production. It is a major international company making a major international production of a franchise for major international distribution.

nou wrote:
Now with the whole BAME thing a lot of poles felt threaten that it'll be robbed from a major, recent and very, very rare achievement.


That says more about Poland than the success of The Witcher ever could.


You are cherry picking here with clear ill intent.

The Witcher games were designed for international audience and international distribution from ground up, there is no major difference between games and Netflix series that justifies modifying internationally successfull source material. The international audience has been already tested and is ok with getting non-BAME adjusted material, your argument simply does not stand. To be honest Poles are actually ME part of the BAME abbreviation if BAME does not simply mean skin color but actual ethnicity - you even have large Polish minority in the US that retained much of it's original identity. And you also misunderstood this last quote - come live here for a while, meet our people, learn our culture and our history, acknowledge the struggle this country has endured during partitions, interwar, soviet and post-soviet era for longer than US even exists and then come back and say that it's perfectly fine and not at all morally questionable by the very metric of yours to rob one culture of it's achievement for the sake of completely foreign cultural issues and financial benefit. Being white does not automatically make us beneficiaries of white west prosperity - very, very far from that. But all that is rather rhetorical, as throughout this whole discourse of ours you are clearly sorting different cultures by importance and insist on US culture being at the top of the pyramid, so at this point it's rather clear what your POV on this thought experiment would be.

And to be clear - I'm in no way offended by any views in this thread or by Netflix actions, what I am is amazed that "diversity" in the modern US dictionary is defined only by the most racist property of skin colour and not by actual cultural diversity of various regional and cultural identities in the world.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:03:42


Post by: d-usa


Per your own admission, nobody is mentioned as being white in the books.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:06:19


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


d-usa wrote:Per your own admission, nobody is mentioned as being white in the books.



There is extremely heavy implication that they are white.

nou wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Not having read the books, is the race of the main characters mentioned in them?


Geralt is as white as it gets, being white haired albino.
Ciri is basically young female version of Geralt, with the same silver/white hair, vivid green eyes, and few elvish traits like thin nose and long fingers - features that are all important in building a recognition of closeness between those two characters.
Triss is very "iconic redhead beauty" with 22 inch waist, deep blue eyes and ruddy cheeks. Those features are basis for lot of this character identity and behavior.
Yennefer is pale skinned, with raven hair and violet eyes. Again, very distinct set of features making her stand out from the crowd, but not in an obvious and direct manner that would support making her non-white. Nevertheless, this would be the best character to swap skin color if and only if you would make background population racially mixed. The biggest issue I can see with her is that she is an ugly hunchback magically turned near-pretty, which could provide basis for racial rant...
Jaskier is a very handsome blond haired guy who could pass for an elf on his better days.



All of those will typically bring to mind Caucasian people.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:07:12


Post by: Galas


 d-usa wrote:

nou wrote:
Now with the whole BAME thing a lot of poles felt threaten that it'll be robbed from a major, recent and very, very rare achievement.


That says more about Poland than the success of The Witcher ever could.


I understand you are insensitive about this being from USA but in Europe ethnic differences are very important, specially in eastern europe. Poles and Russians have much more problems between themselves being both "white" people than agaisnt black or arab or whatever ethnicity.

So when you are basically implying that people from Poland (A country without a racist background or imperialist/colonialist background or a background of opresion agaisnt minorities) are racist or xenophobes because they don't like that one of the only polish things that has become world-wide famous is being "stealed" from them, just because people from Poland is white (Putting all white people in the same box ignoring national background), and admiting your double standards that if this was happening to some other ethnic group that just happens to be a minority in USA it would be different, you are showing yourself as extremely petty.

And I don't want to broke Rule 1#, and I mostly have agree with you when I have been reading you in the USA thread, etc... but your stance here is just so hypocrite and short sighted that I can't understand how you can defend it.


EDIT: Nou has explained it much better than myself and with a more fluent english



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:15:09


Post by: d-usa


I'm German, but that doesn't help my perceived anti-Polish bias any I am sure.

My simple stand is that the game is an adaptation, just as the Netflix version will be an adaptation, and both are able to take whatever creative liberties they want to take.

And until we know why the choice was made, It's hard to be angry about it. There are plenty of valid reasons why they could have gone that route.

My main beef with situations like this is that they basically boil down to "unless a person HAS to be anything other than white, they better be white" in most cases.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:23:04


Post by: Galas


 d-usa wrote:
I'm German, but that doesn't help my perceived anti-Polish bias any I am sure.

My simple stand is that the game is an adaptation, just as the Netflix version will be an adaptation, and both are able to take whatever creative liberties they want to take.

And until we know why the choice was made, It's hard to be angry about it. There are plenty of valid reasons why they could have gone that route.

My main beef with situations like this is that they basically boil down to "unless a person HAS to be anything other than white, they better be white" in most cases.


Then I apologize for assuming your birth-place.

I agree with the rest of your post. I have said it before, adaptations are adaptations. But I found your point about "If this was happening to non-white people it would be bad, but this is ok, and if Poles don't like this they are wrong".

About your last part, is a complex matter. It depends of origin, of the public you are wanting to reach, etc... for example in Warcraft, human kingdoms have people of all skin colours. It is not explained, but it doesn't need to. In the movie you have Stowmrind officials from all ethnicities and nobody said anything. Because it was built into the universe.
The Witcher universe happens to not be constructed that way. As this is a Netflix adaptation, it could change. They can make the people of different skin colours without a problem. Some people would claim forced diversity, I'm sure, and blablabla. Personally i wouldn't found it a problem. Just like when Shadows of War was announced more people was angry about having a black-skined gondor captain than the fething Balrog in Mordor (The black-skined Gondor Captain was from Harad and it was adopted by a Gondor soldier in one of the many Gondorian campaings agaisnt Umbar and Harad)
My only problem here is with the call out for an actress being specifically for everyone barring white. I know, of course, that the norm in most western countries is that when some role is open to all skin colours, it will probably end up being for a white person, and many people has write many things about why that happens. With some I agree and with others I disagree.

This won't be worse than ugly asian Warcraft High Elves with pink teeth and scars


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:38:45


Post by: nou


@ Galas: Thank you for your compliment

@ d-usa: I don't read you as anti-Polish biased, I read you as quite western hermetic in your POV on the world cultural landscape. There is huge difference.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:43:46


Post by: Tannhauser42


 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
d-usa wrote:Per your own admission, nobody is mentioned as being white in the books.



There is extremely heavy implication that they are white.


Yes, but skin color is not emphasized as a significant identifier of who/what people are.* Again, the racism is presented as humans against literal non-humans.



*I would have to double-check how the Zerrikanian bodyguards were introduced.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:46:22


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
d-usa wrote:Per your own admission, nobody is mentioned as being white in the books.



There is extremely heavy implication that they are white.


Yes, but skin color is not emphasized as a significant identifier of who/what people are.* Again, the racism is presented as humans against literal non-humans.

*I would have to double-check how the Zerrikanian bodyguards were introduced.


Well yeah, I was more just pointing out that there is the Implication. What I've gathered of Witcher is as long as you're human you're generally fine regardless of color because thats not what matters. They are more likely to judge a human off what nation they are from than their skin, as that is a very common European thing. Racism being directed more at the non-humans.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:49:27


Post by: Galas


 Tannhauser42 wrote:


How about we move on to lighter topics, like how the books refer to homosexuality as "deviant"?



I know Nou will disagree with me here (Probably) but I think the books are pretty... mediocre to bad. And not only because of the ideas shown by the author. Gerald from the books is an awfull character. And not in the sense that you dislike it because thats what the author wants (Like Joffrey from Song of Fire and Ice). Hes just a bad character.

I'll always say that the videogames are a superior product.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:59:11


Post by: d-usa


 Galas wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:


How about we move on to lighter topics, like how the books refer to homosexuality as "deviant"?



I know Nou will disagree with me here (Probably) but I think the books are pretty... mediocre to bad. And not only because of the ideas shown by the author. Gerald from the books is an awfull character. And not in the sense that you dislike it because thats what the author wants (Like Joffrey from Song of Fire and Ice). Hes just a bad character.

I'll always say that the videogames are a superior product.


That's also another potential issue with the Netflix production:

Is it "Witcher - based on the books" or "Witcher - based on the game based on the books".

How many people are expecting a production based on a game and who have never read any of the actual literary work? Of course the same could probably be said about the Warcraft movie...

Then our whole conversation could have boiled down to:

Person 1: "Why isn't she white?"
Person 2: "Actually, while it's implied the books never specifically mention her specific human race and so they took some creative liberties and blah blah blah"
Person 1: "What the feth are you talking about 'books', she's white in the awesome game I played!"


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 19:59:59


Post by: nou


I have already explained why there is no direct inclusion of skin colour in descriptions of characters in polish saga from the '90s and it has nothing to do with racial identification/racial emphasis. Reading it otherwise is actually modern/foreign reader's viewpoint projection. Nothing wrong with it of course, but one should be aware that this is unintended by the author.

Fun fact - I have actually been there to witness when my cosplayer friend have won a personal judge award from Sapkowski himself for portraying, as he himself said "exactly his Yennefer". Not surprisingly, she is white.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 20:12:25


Post by: Tannhauser42


Interesting news just starting to float around that Cavill may no longer by playing Superman. Let's hope The Witcher works out well.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/12 20:34:27


Post by: nou


 Galas wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:


How about we move on to lighter topics, like how the books refer to homosexuality as "deviant"?



I know Nou will disagree with me here (Probably) but I think the books are pretty... mediocre to bad. And not only because of the ideas shown by the author. Gerald from the books is an awfull character. And not in the sense that you dislike it because thats what the author wants (Like Joffrey from Song of Fire and Ice). Hes just a bad character.

I'll always say that the videogames are a superior product.


And now I'll probably surprise you very, very much - I don't like The Witcher series. I have had the (un)fortunate opportunity to meet the author in mid-90s, before reading my first book and he is as much arrogant and unpleasant person as one can be and that experience had spoiled this series for me permanently. But nevertheless The Witcher is a phenomenon here in Poland on par with GoT and LotR, so I simply had to learn about it to understand my fandom friends and this is why my knowledge about the series is more academic than fanboyish. I do own the first game, though by the strange twist of fate I have never really played it, as my wife became interested in 40K right after Steam sale I bought it on and I have never looked back at computer games since.

Now about homosexuality being "deviant" in Sapkowski works - again, this is directly drawn from polish '90s climate of sparking debate about abortion, catholic church and homosexual rights that ignited our politics back then. The book may be mediocre (but I think it looses a lot of language character in translation), the characters awfull, but amazingly, the source material is a great looking glass into post-transformation Poland. And yes, games added another huuuuge layer to this and are the true basis for both modern fandom love and Netflix interest in this project. Many people I know have actually read the books only after playing the games. Another fun fact - Sapkowski was so convinced that the whole game endavour will be a failure, that he demanded full (and rather small) payment for the rights up front and not a percentage of earnings (a full story is a bit more complicated than that, but this is the crux of it). This was renegotiated only later, before second instalment of the game series.

[BTW, it's nou not Nou, the small letters are conscious visual choice. Just informative, not offended or anything, I know it's obscure and unintuitive.]


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 00:08:45


Post by: Lance845


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Interesting news just starting to float around that Cavill may no longer by playing Superman. Let's hope The Witcher works out well.


Well the whole dceu was a gak show anyway. Good on him getting out. Hes a better actor then those movies ever let him be.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 00:26:42


Post by: whembly


Loved books.

Couldn't give a gak if the actors are white/black/asian...

Only that they'd be GOOD for the roles and make it work onscreen.

Ie, Idris Elba in Dark Tower. Even the story was "meh"... he fething owned the Gunslinger role.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 01:14:09


Post by: Lance845


 whembly wrote:
Loved books.

Couldn't give a gak if the actors are white/black/asian...

Only that they'd be GOOD for the roles and make it work onscreen.

Ie, Idris Elba in Dark Tower. Even the story was "meh"... he fething owned the Gunslinger role.


Thats actually a really great example.

A character who in the books is described in absolute terms to be white with clear blue eyes. A man who looks exactly like Clint Eastwood in his older-middle years.

Black actor did a great job.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 01:54:37


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Agreed. If race isn't really "important" to the character, the setting, or the director's intent, then anything other than a raceblind casting is in bad taste. Cast the best person for the job, regardless of anything.

However, if there isn't a narrative reason or political reason, then I strongly oppose any kind of casting with a bias - that being white-central, or BAME.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 01:59:50


Post by: Elbows


I hate diversity for diversity's sake when it comes to arts and entertainment. It boils down to simple pandering, pandering to chase dollars. I blame the audience for this one, the culture who watches all of this stuff and throws a fit when they don't see enough people "like them" in whatever source material they're viewing. In shortest terms I always feel diversity should be a benefit, but never a goal.

To me, the source material should always be sacred to the person/people who created it. Everything else comes second. A well done story, book, movie, novel, etc. should stand on its own merits without having to pander to make someone comfortable or chase an extra percentage of profit. Furthermore I don't believe a creator of an IP has any need to justify why a character is what they are. "Zoe is a 12 year old female from Botswana" - "Why?" - "Because I said she is."

I see the argument constantly "well, what woman does my daughter have to look up to for a strong woman!?" or "what does my (insert race here) child look up to in these films?" - to which I ask, why can your child not look up to a person of a different race or sex? You're starting that gak in the home if that's how you're raising your kid. I find the current crop of "female" wannabe heroes laughable when I compare them to Ripley (and yes Vasquez...because Goreman "was" always an donkey-cave) and Sarah Connor...legit bad ass females I admired as a *gasp* teenage male growing up. I admired characters in movies regardless of race or sex...a good character is a good character. Maybe it's because I grew up in a lower-middle class area as a military brat, but it was never the race or sex of the character that mattered to me. Denzel and Freeman in Glory were way more badass than the whiny Broderick (and the super awkward Elwes).

That's just my soap box, but I hate the way we treat everyone with kid gloves when it comes to race and sex. Let the characters be whatever they were. Why don't we work from the other direction and ask why people can't admire a strong character without regard to their 'category'?



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 02:44:17


Post by: Lance845


On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

And?

Pride for prides sake is just jerking off an ego and has exactly zero value.

It blinds you to faults or criticism and bars you from improvement.

The author is dead.

A sentiment that doesn't mean literally that the author has died but instead that after a work has been created and released to the public it doesn't matter what the author meant or what the author wants the audience will take from it what they will and the work becomes something the author has no say or control over.

So a bunch of feths from some country care that some feth from their country made a thing that eventually got adapted to be considered great around the whole world. Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 02:46:23


Post by: thekingofkings


 Galas wrote:
But Idris Elba is Idris Elba. I would allow him to portray my Grandmother in a movie about my life without a second thought.


Same here, I cant read the Dark Tower series without seeing him as Roland, the man is just freakin awesome!


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 09:07:48


Post by: dyndraig


 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

(...)

Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.


I cant wait for the next Hollywood LotR movie adaption where Gimli has been replaced by a hot werewolf and Legolas by a hot Vampire, because who needs artistic integrity when you can led the marketing team design your movie according to what's trendy right now


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 09:45:48


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

And?

Pride for prides sake is just jerking off an ego and has exactly zero value.

It blinds you to faults or criticism and bars you from improvement.

The author is dead.

A sentiment that doesn't mean literally that the author has died but instead that after a work has been created and released to the public it doesn't matter what the author meant or what the author wants the audience will take from it what they will and the work becomes something the author has no say or control over.

So a bunch of feths from some country care that some feth from their country made a thing that eventually got adapted to be considered great around the whole world. Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.

On one hand, death of the author (and the author's intent being forsaken in favour of a different theme or idea for the director) are valid outcomes. However, there should always be a reason to change something. Was the original work problematic? Is there an unforseen aspect, or interpretation, that could be brought out further? Is it a minor detail? All of these would be fine reasons to change something in regards to death of the author.

However - just because you CAN change something doesn't mean you should. Why *should* you change it? What does it add? Is it superfluous? And, as dyndraig says, let's just recast and re-race everyone from LOTR, hell, let's go and do it with every IP we have, because "Death of the Author wooooooo". Death of the Author is most commonly used for thematic and messaging reasons - what the author is saying, what their message is: not necessarily "let's change everything about their work". It's more about perception as to what their material says, versus what the author claims it says (case in point, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 being seen as anti-censorship, but him actually claiming it's about anti-mass media).

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 11:11:12


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

And?

Pride for prides sake is just jerking off an ego and has exactly zero value.

It blinds you to faults or criticism and bars you from improvement.

The author is dead.

A sentiment that doesn't mean literally that the author has died but instead that after a work has been created and released to the public it doesn't matter what the author meant or what the author wants the audience will take from it what they will and the work becomes something the author has no say or control over.

So a bunch of feths from some country care that some feth from their country made a thing that eventually got adapted to be considered great around the whole world. Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.
It's not about making Poles happy, it's about accepting it is Polish and not changing it because you think your audience is too shallow and immature to have any cultural empathy.

Not everything has to be passed through the standard American filter. Part of appreciating art is appreciating not all of it was developed by people like you for people like you, yet still being able to relate to it while also accepting and learning about the differences.

I don't really care whether or not it makes Poles happy, I'm not Polish and don't have any Polish heritage, but I still want the story to stay true to its Polish heritage.

I reckon it's partly because of that Polish heritage that so many of the characters are actually really well written, including those strong believable female characters.

Regarding The Death of the Author - that has more to do with interpreting and analysing a text and how a reader derives meaning from it, not to butchering it in to another form. It is a valid argument, but not for the reason of saying it's fine to change things. It's hardly a universally accepted school of thought anyway and hardly universally applicable.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 11:59:32


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


 Elbows wrote:
I hate diversity for diversity's sake when it comes to arts and entertainment. It boils down to simple pandering, pandering to chase dollars. I blame the audience for this one, the culture who watches all of this stuff and throws a fit when they don't see enough people "like them" in whatever source material they're viewing. In shortest terms I always feel diversity should be a benefit, but never a goal.

To me, the source material should always be sacred to the person/people who created it. Everything else comes second. A well done story, book, movie, novel, etc. should stand on its own merits without having to pander to make someone comfortable or chase an extra percentage of profit. Furthermore I don't believe a creator of an IP has any need to justify why a character is what they are. "Zoe is a 12 year old female from Botswana" - "Why?" - "Because I said she is."

I see the argument constantly "well, what woman does my daughter have to look up to for a strong woman!?" or "what does my (insert race here) child look up to in these films?" - to which I ask, why can your child not look up to a person of a different race or gender? You're starting that stuff in the home if that's how you're raising your kid. I find the current crop of "female" wannabe heroes laughable when I compare them to Ripley (and yes Vasquez...because Goreman "was" always a donkey cave) and Sarah Connor...legit bad bottomed females I admired as a *gasp* teenage male growing up. I admired characters in movies regardless of race or sex...a good character is a good character. Maybe it's because I grew up in a lower-middle class area as a military brat, but it was never the race or gender of the character that mattered to me. Denzel and Freeman in Glory were way more bad bottomed than the whiny Broderick (and the super awkward Elwes).

That's just my soap box, but I hate the way we treat everyone with kid gloves when it comes to race and gender. Let the characters be whatever they were. Why don't we work from the other direction and ask why people can't admire a strong character without regard to their 'category'?



Fog up, I've had to change a few words in your post because work filters! Apologies, but was necessary.

Second, this isn't meant to be a personal attack, or antagonistic.

Whilst you make a fair point that anyone can look up to anyone (I think MLK was a great example of how to get things done in the face of adversity, for instance), but you have to look at how specific races tend to be portrayed on screen.

Black males tend to be Gang Banging Thugs. It seems you can't involve a black actor without having their character use 'muddy funster' repeatedly, or refer to women solely as female dogs (work filters folks, not me being sensitive to rude words and derogatory terms). And if they're in with the good guys, they best be that big ol' slab o' muscle right up the back. Can't have them as the smart, brainy one - apparently because reasons.

Latin American origin? Make up will see you at 7am to put some dodgy facial tattoos and a bandana on you, before a hard day calling everyone cabrone or puto. Because, yup! You're a drug dealer. Again.

TV, big screen. It's the same.

That's why positive role models for those communities and that are important. It's why Black Panther mattered to a great many people - even if others don't understand quite why.

So if Super Hero A doesn't have a curiously specific background (for arguments sake, if Cap had been a German experiment to create an Aryan Ubermensch, but happened to rail against his indoctrination, as a drawn out, admittedly shonky example), why reserve the role for Yet Another White Bloke? Good example here is of course Heimdal. Despite the protestation of goons, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have cast Idris Elba there. According to the backstory, the Asgardians inspired the Norse Gods - not the other way around.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 12:22:22


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Fog up, I've had to change a few words in your post because work filters! Apologies, but was necessary.

Second, this isn't meant to be a personal attack, or antagonistic.

Whilst you make a fair point that anyone can look up to anyone (I think MLK was a great example of how to get things done in the face of adversity, for instance), but you have to look at how specific races tend to be portrayed on screen.

Black males tend to be Gang Banging Thugs. It seems you can't involve a black actor without having their character use 'muddy funster' repeatedly, or refer to women solely as female dogs (work filters folks, not me being sensitive to rude words and derogatory terms). And if they're in with the good guys, they best be that big ol' slab o' muscle right up the back. Can't have them as the smart, brainy one - apparently because reasons.

Latin American origin? Make up will see you at 7am to put some dodgy facial tattoos and a bandana on you, before a hard day calling everyone cabrone or puto. Because, yup! You're a drug dealer. Again.

TV, big screen. It's the same.

That's why positive role models for those communities and that are important. It's why Black Panther mattered to a great many people - even if others don't understand quite why.

So if Super Hero A doesn't have a curiously specific background (for arguments sake, if Cap had been a German experiment to create an Aryan Ubermensch, but happened to rail against his indoctrination, as a drawn out, admittedly shonky example), why reserve the role for Yet Another White Bloke? Good example here is of course Heimdal. Despite the protestation of goons, there's absolutely no reason they shouldn't have cast Idris Elba there. According to the backstory, the Asgardians inspired the Norse Gods - not the other way around.
I agree that racial stereotypes are an issue, and are something that's long overstayed it's welcome.

However, this is more reason for raceblind casting, not for BAME casting. We need more roles that anyone, with any role, could apply for: with Heimdall, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that was a BAME casting, and more of a "best person for the job" casting - a raceblind one, which I prefer.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.

In general, I dislike BAME casting. Make more raceblind roles, raceblind castings, and then that way, if the character is a good role model, then that would apply for whatever race the actor playing them is. Or, better yet, we could push further for people to see anyone, of any race or any gender, as a positive role model (of course, I'm aware that's easier said than done).


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 13:01:44


Post by: Lance845


dyndraig wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
On the other hand, who gives a gak what anyone thinks is sacred? So a bunch of polish people are super proud of some not great books written by a polish author that were turned into really great games by a polish video game studio.

(...)

Well, the author is dead. And their opinions, while potentially interesting, no longer (and never really) actually matter.


I cant wait for the next Hollywood LotR movie adaption where Gimli has been replaced by a hot werewolf and Legolas by a hot Vampire, because who needs artistic integrity when you can led the marketing team design your movie according to what's trendy right now


And when they do ALL the other version of LoTR will still exist and that new werewolf/vampire LotR will have to stand or fall on it's own merits. Just like the hobbit trilogy has had to where it was a long dragged out slog that put a simiril in the lonely mountain treasure for no good reason and added a bunch of crap that wasn't in the original books. Oh, did you like the peter jackson lotr trilogy? Well not only did they cut a bunch of stuff out they also made a bunch of stuff up and like 3 characters acted completely different from the way they do in the books. And at the end Sauramon didn't even take over the shire and the hobbits didn't kill him which was the only part of all 3 books where the hobbits did something for themselves!

Thanks for proving my point.

It doesn't matter a single atom what the authors original material was or what the author wants or what the country the author is from feels. The author is dead. The reader is born. And any subsequent adaptations are the works of new authors who will die upon release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

On one hand, death of the author (and the author's intent being forsaken in favour of a different theme or idea for the director) are valid outcomes. However, there should always be a reason to change something. Was the original work problematic? Is there an unforseen aspect, or interpretation, that could be brought out further? Is it a minor detail? All of these would be fine reasons to change something in regards to death of the author.


In the world of the Witcher, everyones skin color is a minor detail.

However - just because you CAN change something doesn't mean you should. Why *should* you change it? What does it add? Is it superfluous? And, as dyndraig says, let's just recast and re-race everyone from LOTR, hell, let's go and do it with every IP we have, because "Death of the Author wooooooo". Death of the Author is most commonly used for thematic and messaging reasons - what the author is saying, what their message is: not necessarily "let's change everything about their work". It's more about perception as to what their material says, versus what the author claims it says (case in point, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 being seen as anti-censorship, but him actually claiming it's about anti-mass media).


The original essay "The Author is Dead (The Reader is Born)" is actually primarily about a way to criticize a work, were in the work is supposed to stand on it's own merits and convey it's own messages and needs to be viewed in a vacuum separated from the authors life and intent. Which is specifically applicable here where the world of the Witcher is 100% fictional, borrows heavily from germanic brothers grimm folk lore, and the authors nationality and the population mix of his country doesn't have any bearing on the world he created.

Why should they cast not white people in the witcher TV series? Because it just doesn't matter. The character can be 100% in tact with a different skin color. And in the actual world we live in it's better to give fair and equal opportunities then it is to place the original author of the not super famous books on a pedestal and hold his whiteness sacred.

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)


Yes, I think cultural pride is stupid when cultural pride is used to try to mire you in traditions and prevent change. Cultural pride has been used as an excuse to not let gay people get married. To not let black people marry white people. To not let women vote. To not let black people go to school. RIGHT NOW women are stoned to death in the middle east because they want to get an education and a job because of cultural pride.

Again, the amazing thing about Black Panther is not that it's something that belongs to black people. It's that they made just a movie that was nearly fully cast by black people with zero tokenism. Their blackness wasn't a butt of a joke. Their blackness wasn't a defining characteristic of their character. And when the white people were in the movie their whiteness wasn't the defining characteristic of THEIR character either. You might be able to count the number of american/european movies made this way on 1 hand. It's also the first time where the main character was a literal hero.

You know what I saw in the mall the other day. 3 people of 3 different skin tones wearing clothes with black panther stuff on it. It's not just something for black people to be proud of. It's something we should all be proud of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I agree that racial stereotypes are an issue, and are something that's long overstayed it's welcome.

However, this is more reason for raceblind casting, not for BAME casting. We need more roles that anyone, with any role, could apply for: with Heimdall, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that was a BAME casting, and more of a "best person for the job" casting - a raceblind one, which I prefer.


I am all for race blind casting. I think it's great! I think it's the end goal of the marathon we are all running. But it's a marathon not a toggle switch we can just flip on. This is part of a process as a society. We cannot instantly tell everyone to start treating everyone fairly and then have everyone just do it. It's a process that begins with gak like affirmative action (which creates it's own problems) which starts other discussions but starts to break down barriers, moves on to the conscious choice to include BLAME even when your not told you need to, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad (and the work suffers for it or doesn't based on a great number of things that have nothing to do with skin color) and eventually BLAME doesn't need to be a thing at all because it's just not something anyone thinks about.

I think it's great that you want race blind casting. I just think your kidding yourself if you think we have reached that point yet.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.


To be fair, in the Marvel Universe that IS Thor and Loki and Odin and so on. Those ARE the Norse gods. That Thor is the same Thor the Norse were telling stories about in the Prose Eda.

Black Panther takes place in a fictional version of the real world. It has an Africa. Wakanda is a fictional country with a fictional culture that isn't anybodies to be represented. The few real world africans we saw in that movie were in the opening scene and were militants transporting women and children to be recruited or killed or raped or turned into slaves. The analog with poland and the witcher doesn't exist.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 14:48:24


Post by: nou


Because AllSeeingSkink and Sgt_Smudge are spot on and this has been already discussed at lenght I won't even answer to Lance's post.

Instead, I would like to focus on what AllSeeingSking said for the second time now - believable strong female characters as a result of polish history - as this is a very spot on observation and my true concern about Netflix production if they choose to do a "loose adaptation". Many "strong women" in US based production are incoherent and clearly designed to "inspire" without much regard for psychological integrity and they are commonly made to look strong by either vocalizing their supposed strength directly without well established foundations for such claim and/or by weakening male characters around them and emphasising male flaws of character. This is the most common topic of discussion with my wife when watching many US based stories (not all of course) and Netflix is really notorious for this - I'm now in the process of watching second season of Iron Fist and the whole season construction is quite ridiculous in that regard.

The reason why we (polish audience) perceive those characters as unbelievable is that throughout polish history polish women and men alike couldn't just whine about inequality and oppression to get something done, because the real struggle and oppression came from external occupants and sex had close to nothing to do with how hard or how easy your life was. We had no period in our history when women were institutionally treated as "pretty house plants" and "stay at home mom" was very rare - most children in the last century were raised "with a key around their neck" as we say here, that is they were expected to deal with daily school life, including returning home and feeding themselves unassisted from early primary school. Another key reason is that up untill 2000s we had state only higher education with very limited number of openings and internal admission exams. To put things in numbers: during 80s and 90s there were only 7 openings a year in academic painting and a dozen or so in graphic design, around 50 in university maths and psychology and only technical university had number of openings reaching hundreds per department - all that for 1.2mln Varsovians and few more millions of people in neighboring voivodeships. Up untill mid '90s your personal or parental wealth status had very little to do with your chances of admission as even private tutoring was illegal (as any private commercial activity back then). You wanted carrer and recognition of your virtues? You had to earn those in direct competition with everyone else. The only way around was through personal connections somewhere high in state agencies. Of course inner family traditions played important role as well - if you were raised in a family that owned a piano because your parent was a musician you had an obvious head start, but nobody would call that a privledge or systemic inequality because you still had to pass admission exams as any other and if you were talented and driven enough there were public activity clubs to practice in. Corruption culture was sometimes a problem, but not "rigged system". It was also very, very common for those women who have chosen university path in Poland to deliberately have their first child during university years even if they did not have direct parental or grandparental help available (inner migration was and is very common in Poland).

As a result of above and other similar reasons strong women and men throughout our history simply act to prove their strength instead of try to talk others into believing they are strong. If you actually had adequate character traits necessary to elevate you from your starting position to your desired position you might have succeeded if and only if you were skilled and lucky enough to get ahead of competition. This made for very consistent biographies of both successful role models and failed people (in whatever meaning, this could be national level or local neighborhood level) that polish writers could utilize to write believable characters in any genre. And so they did. There was also no need or culture for design/propaganda driven artificial role modeling in '80s and '90s because we already knew that those are futile after early 50's and 60's when communism directly tried to establish homo-sovieticus mindset here.

It was only with millenial generation and constant "patting on the back" private education culture introduction when entitlement narrative was planted here. I actually remember my first WTF moment when I was accused of "undercutting wings" of a privately schooled woman from next younger generation when pointing out glaring flaws in her ideas for her bachelor's thesis. But I have already wrote a post about three kinds of feminism earlier and I don't want to repeat myself.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 14:50:35


Post by: Lance845


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
It's not about making Poles happy, it's about accepting it is Polish and not changing it because you think your audience is too shallow and immature to have any cultural empathy.

Not everything has to be passed through the standard American filter. Part of appreciating art is appreciating not all of it was developed by people like you for people like you, yet still being able to relate to it while also accepting and learning about the differences.

I don't really care whether or not it makes Poles happy, I'm not Polish and don't have any Polish heritage, but I still want the story to stay true to its Polish heritage.


The Witcher borrows very heavily from a crap ton of other heritages. Almost every story written in the witcher books is an adaptation of a Hans Christian Anderson or Brothers Grimm fairly tale made dark and twisted because thats the witcher for you.

One of them is Beauty and the Beast where the beast is cursed and the Beauty is a type of vampire thats using him for protection.

Nothing is made in a vacuum. This is no more polish then the TV show Supernatural is all the many cultural entities that show up and they kill are their culture.

I am not arguing for the Witcher to be made "like me". I am arguing that being upset about casting not white is stupid. I hope the show is as good as the games which is to say way better then the books. What race the actress playing Ciri is doesn't have any impact on that quality.

I reckon it's partly because of that Polish heritage that so many of the characters are actually really well written, including those strong believable female characters.


Have you read any of the books? I have. There is good stuff in there. There is also a lot of really rough stuff thats just not great. Do you think it's only possible to portray the women characters as strong if they have a white heritage? Whats actually important? The writing and directing or the skin color here?

Regarding The Death of the Author - that has more to do with interpreting and analysing a text and how a reader derives meaning from it, not to butchering it in to another form. It is a valid argument, but not for the reason of saying it's fine to change things. It's hardly a universally accepted school of thought anyway and hardly universally applicable.


Its always fine to change things because the old thing hasn't gone anywhere. If the show comes out and inspires people to go read the original books then great. The books are still there. The show doesn't remove the books from existence in the same way that the games didn't and the horribly bad previous tv attempt didn't either.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 17:49:31


Post by: Sgt_Smudge


Lance845 wrote:
 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

On one hand, death of the author (and the author's intent being forsaken in favour of a different theme or idea for the director) are valid outcomes. However, there should always be a reason to change something. Was the original work problematic? Is there an unforseen aspect, or interpretation, that could be brought out further? Is it a minor detail? All of these would be fine reasons to change something in regards to death of the author.


In the world of the Witcher, everyones skin color is a minor detail.
So why is the casting team asking for a BAME actress?

I want to just clarify, I personally don't have an issue if the actress was non-Polish ethnicity. Clearly, with Henry Cavill's casting, they're not going to have a "correct" ethnic cast. What I DO have a problem with is the fact that it quite literally is forced "diversity". If race is such a non-issue, it shouldn't matter what race Ciri is, and should be an open casting.

And, regardless if in the world of the Witcher, skin colour isn't a cause for racism, it doesn't change the fact that there was an original concept for character's colour, and it's not a bad one.
Don't fix what ain't broken is what I say: and if you want to bring in the argument of "we should have diversity, that's the broken part", having an ethnically Polish actress would fulfil that too.

There's no reason not to have a Polish actress, unless they're either not a good actress, or the casting team want someone decidedly not-white.

The original essay "The Author is Dead (The Reader is Born)" is actually primarily about a way to criticize a work, were in the work is supposed to stand on it's own merits and convey it's own messages and needs to be viewed in a vacuum separated from the authors life and intent. Which is specifically applicable here where the world of the Witcher is 100% fictional, borrows heavily from germanic brothers grimm folk lore, and the authors nationality and the population mix of his country doesn't have any bearing on the world he created.
You can criticize the books with separation from the author, but from a cultural representation standpoint, you cannot ignore that the Witcher is incredibly rooted in the culture of the author, be that folklore or not. It's still the culture of that people, and when it is a people that have had very little in the way of representation, that's quite important for a "muh representation" argument.

Again - what exactly is the problem with having an open casting? Why did it need to be BAME? That's all I'm saying.

Why should they cast not white people in the witcher TV series? Because it just doesn't matter. The character can be 100% in tact with a different skin color. And in the actual world we live in it's better to give fair and equal opportunities then it is to place the original author of the not super famous books on a pedestal and hold his whiteness sacred.
Yes, agreed. I don't the ethnicity of the character really matter. What does matter is how they're choosing to cast them - by putting up arbitrary barriers. We should give FAIR and EQUAL opportunities - BAME casting is not equal and fair.

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)


Yes, I think cultural pride is stupid when cultural pride is used to try to mire you in traditions and prevent change. Cultural pride has been used as an excuse to not let gay people get married. To not let black people marry white people. To not let women vote. To not let black people go to school. RIGHT NOW women are stoned to death in the middle east because they want to get an education and a job because of cultural pride.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with cultural pride. There IS a problem when your culture revolves around stoning women because they want basic human rights. There is a problem when your culture prevents gays being married. Cultural pride is a problem if it prevents basic human rights.

The cultural pride here of respecting the origins and culture of a minority race is hardly the same. Again, I personally wouldn't complain if it was a raceblind casting, and someone not of Polish heritage was cast (hi Henry Cavill - most likely an open casting). However, when it is a BAME casting that seems to alienate the very ethnic group that the franchise is BASED off? That's kinda disrespectful to cultural pride, which isn't really negatively harming anyone.

Again, the amazing thing about Black Panther is not that it's something that belongs to black people. It's that they made just a movie that was nearly fully cast by black people with zero tokenism. Their blackness wasn't a butt of a joke. Their blackness wasn't a defining characteristic of their character. And when the white people were in the movie their whiteness wasn't the defining characteristic of THEIR character either. You might be able to count the number of american/european movies made this way on 1 hand. It's also the first time where the main character was a literal hero.

You know what I saw in the mall the other day. 3 people of 3 different skin tones wearing clothes with black panther stuff on it. It's not just something for black people to be proud of. It's something we should all be proud of.
Exactly, so why do we need a BAME casting when we should all be proud of an ethnically Polish Ciri?

The Wakandans didn't HAVE to be black. They're a fictional country. But it's the most logical, and culturally appropriate, thing to do, and that's 100% fine. I have no issues with Black Panther's casting, and I absolutely recognize that it was open to everyone. But why wouldn't the Witcher (which is also logically and culturally appropriately Polish) also be open to everyone too?


I am all for race blind casting. I think it's great! I think it's the end goal of the marathon we are all running. But it's a marathon not a toggle switch we can just flip on. This is part of a process as a society. We cannot instantly tell everyone to start treating everyone fairly and then have everyone just do it. It's a process that begins with gak like affirmative action (which creates it's own problems) which starts other discussions but starts to break down barriers, moves on to the conscious choice to include BLAME even when your not told you need to, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad (and the work suffers for it or doesn't based on a great number of things that have nothing to do with skin color) and eventually BLAME doesn't need to be a thing at all because it's just not something anyone thinks about.

I think it's great that you want race blind casting. I just think your kidding yourself if you think we have reached that point yet.
I don't see why we can't flip the switch. By dragging this out, it furthers the idea of a "white vs everyone else" culture war, just like this is doing. BAME in itself is the epitome of that.
I know that realistically, we can't just say "let's forget centuries of systemic racism", but it doesn't means that people can't start doing that, and hopefully, other follow.

With BAME being a thing, it creates friction in the idea that diversity is something to fill quotas, to tick off a box. Going straight into open casting, with no restrictions, would allow for natural, non-forced diversity - REAL diversity. When that persists, then it will carry itself.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.


To be fair, in the Marvel Universe that IS Thor and Loki and Odin and so on. Those ARE the Norse gods. That Thor is the same Thor the Norse were telling stories about in the Prose Eda.
Not really. Unless the MCU Edda is very different to ours. In our Edda, I believe Thor is red-headed, married to Sif, and was a lover of a frost giant. Loki wasn't adopted, and I actually believe was closer to Odin's counterpart than Thor's. Very different to the MCU Asgardians.

MCU Heimdall is not the same Heimdall as the Edda.

Black Panther takes place in a fictional version of the real world. It has an Africa. Wakanda is a fictional country with a fictional culture that isn't anybodies to be represented. The few real world africans we saw in that movie were in the opening scene and were militants transporting women and children to be recruited or killed or raped or turned into slaves. The analog with poland and the witcher doesn't exist.
Africa doesn't mean black. It's fictional, they could be any skin colour, any ethnicity. If anything, their isolationism should actually have prompted some kind of racial divergence - if it was even real.

So if Black Panther WAS truly fictional with no representation, why do so many people view it as such? Death of the Author: while it might not have been intended to be anyone's culture*, it has been adopted into black cultures globally.

The Witcher have the same analog, with both settings being strongly based in real world cultural cues, taking from real world aesthetics or influence, but both being ultimately fictional. Again, I don't mind if Ciri wasn't Polish. I do have an issue that they seemingly don't permit for a Polish actress despite that being a very clear cultural influence on the setting.

*and I do think it was quite clearly intended to be significant for black people.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/13 21:51:41


Post by: Lance845


@ Sgt_Smudge

Awesome. Turns out you and I don't actually disagree on much. So for clarity sake let me rewind this right back to the beginning.

News is casting call for Ciri is looking for a BLAME actress. Thats all the information we got (and it turns out that could be incorrect but lets ignore that for now).

So in the equation we have BLAME casting call for X reasons = Y

Now Y could be well meaning idiocy. It could be Racism. It could be totally legit.

That all depends on X. X COULD be artistic licenses to separate the disparate nations by a more visual means for the political element of the world. It could also just be racism. It could also be marketing being fethers. We don't know. And we don't have any other information to even begin to calculate what X is. Literally every answer is equally possible without any further information.

Until we get some more information being upset about what X COULD be is a stupendous waste of time. And yelling "racism" or "potential racism" is exactly the same as every left wing idiot standing on a street corner yelling that white men are the problem with everything in the world.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
So why is the casting team asking for a BAME actress?


Thats the question! Not all answers to that question are bad. Without more info getting upset is dumb.

I want to just clarify, I personally don't have an issue if the actress was non-Polish ethnicity. Clearly, with Henry Cavill's casting, they're not going to have a "correct" ethnic cast. What I DO have a problem with is the fact that it quite literally is forced "diversity". If race is such a non-issue, it shouldn't matter what race Ciri is, and should be an open casting.


They could very well have reasons for diversifying the cast that is not diversity for diversities sake. We will have to wait and see.

The original essay "The Author is Dead (The Reader is Born)" is actually primarily about a way to criticize a work, were in the work is supposed to stand on it's own merits and convey it's own messages and needs to be viewed in a vacuum separated from the authors life and intent. Which is specifically applicable here where the world of the Witcher is 100% fictional, borrows heavily from germanic brothers grimm folk lore, and the authors nationality and the population mix of his country doesn't have any bearing on the world he created.
You can criticize the books with separation from the author, but from a cultural representation standpoint, you cannot ignore that the Witcher is incredibly rooted in the culture of the author, be that folklore or not. It's still the culture of that people, and when it is a people that have had very little in the way of representation, that's quite important for a "muh representation" argument.


I don't take any stock in the "muh representation" argument outside of variety being good. I don't care what any individual is feeling on the matter. Socially I have some very liberal leanings. But I am a libertarian at heart. And that means you are not owed your feelings being coddled. I want a world where we just don't think about it because we have reached the point of race blindness. If we need to force some diversity now to get to there then fine. Good. Get there.

Why should they cast not white people in the witcher TV series? Because it just doesn't matter. The character can be 100% in tact with a different skin color. And in the actual world we live in it's better to give fair and equal opportunities then it is to place the original author of the not super famous books on a pedestal and hold his whiteness sacred.
Yes, agreed. I don't the ethnicity of the character really matter. What does matter is how they're choosing to cast them - by putting up arbitrary barriers. We should give FAIR and EQUAL opportunities - BAME casting is not equal and fair.


We don't KNOW that the barriers are arbitrary. Thats an assumption.

Furthermore, let's just take a look at that first line - replace Polish with any of the more typical BAME groups. You still stand by that? Cultural identity is kinda a big deal, especially for a people which hasn't exactly had a rosy history. Clearly, cultural pride has a market (Black Panther inspired a lot of folks), but why is this one too far?
So, just to clarify, do your views on not being allowed to be proud of something that's symbolic of your culture apply to ALL cultures?

(I'm going to ignore the statement about it making people exempt from criticism, because that's often not the culture's fault - that's more often than not more that person not wanting to be critiqued anyway.)


Yes, I think cultural pride is stupid when cultural pride is used to try to mire you in traditions and prevent change. Cultural pride has been used as an excuse to not let gay people get married. To not let black people marry white people. To not let women vote. To not let black people go to school. RIGHT NOW women are stoned to death in the middle east because they want to get an education and a job because of cultural pride.
Exactly. There's nothing inherently wrong with cultural pride. There IS a problem when your culture revolves around stoning women because they want basic human rights. There is a problem when your culture prevents gays being married. Cultural pride is a problem if it prevents basic human rights.

The cultural pride here of respecting the origins and culture of a minority race is hardly the same. Again, I personally wouldn't complain if it was a raceblind casting, and someone not of Polish heritage was cast (hi Henry Cavill - most likely an open casting). However, when it is a BAME casting that seems to alienate the very ethnic group that the franchise is BASED off? That's kinda disrespectful to cultural pride, which isn't really negatively harming anyone.


Then Ciri should be some kind of Roman/Greek. Her nation in the fictional world is most heavily influenced by Alexanders Roman Empire. Not polish. But again. It's a 100% fictional world and no landmass or nation that exists in our world exists in theirs. So... whatever.

Again, the amazing thing about Black Panther is not that it's something that belongs to black people. It's that they made just a movie that was nearly fully cast by black people with zero tokenism. Their blackness wasn't a butt of a joke. Their blackness wasn't a defining characteristic of their character. And when the white people were in the movie their whiteness wasn't the defining characteristic of THEIR character either. You might be able to count the number of american/european movies made this way on 1 hand. It's also the first time where the main character was a literal hero.

You know what I saw in the mall the other day. 3 people of 3 different skin tones wearing clothes with black panther stuff on it. It's not just something for black people to be proud of. It's something we should all be proud of.
Exactly, so why do we need a BAME casting when we should all be proud of an ethnically Polish Ciri?

The Wakandans didn't HAVE to be black. They're a fictional country. But it's the most logical, and culturally appropriate, thing to do, and that's 100% fine. I have no issues with Black Panther's casting, and I absolutely recognize that it was open to everyone. But why wouldn't the Witcher (which is also logically and culturally appropriately Polish) also be open to everyone too?


Wakandans DO have to be black. There might be small structural differences between historically French and Historically British people but they are both white as hell. Wakanda is a country right in middle Africa. Ethnically they are black. Again, the marvel earth is mostly our earth. That landmass is the same as our landmass with an extra country drawn into the middle of it. We know what people from that region look like.

Not true of the witcher.

I am all for race blind casting. I think it's great! I think it's the end goal of the marathon we are all running. But it's a marathon not a toggle switch we can just flip on. This is part of a process as a society. We cannot instantly tell everyone to start treating everyone fairly and then have everyone just do it. It's a process that begins with gak like affirmative action (which creates it's own problems) which starts other discussions but starts to break down barriers, moves on to the conscious choice to include BLAME even when your not told you need to, sometimes for good reasons and sometimes for bad (and the work suffers for it or doesn't based on a great number of things that have nothing to do with skin color) and eventually BLAME doesn't need to be a thing at all because it's just not something anyone thinks about.

I think it's great that you want race blind casting. I just think your kidding yourself if you think we have reached that point yet.
I don't see why we can't flip the switch. By dragging this out, it furthers the idea of a "white vs everyone else" culture war, just like this is doing. BAME in itself is the epitome of that.
I know that realistically, we can't just say "let's forget centuries of systemic racism", but it doesn't means that people can't start doing that, and hopefully, other follow.


It would be great! but there is what SHOULD be and what IS. And what IS is almost never what SHOULD be. The fact is it does take time and changes happen in iterations not instantaneous switches. You and I might understand what it actually means to have truely Raceblind casting but that doesn't mean that even the people who say they want to do that are capable of doing it without their systemic, cultural racism influencing the outcomes.

With BAME being a thing, it creates friction in the idea that diversity is something to fill quotas, to tick off a box. Going straight into open casting, with no restrictions, would allow for natural, non-forced diversity - REAL diversity. When that persists, then it will carry itself.

Again, the important part with Heimdall is that MCU/Marvel Heimdall is NOT Norse God Heimdall. They're fictional heroes made by Americans, with the names and vague outlines of the old Norse gods. Hell, they're not really even correct with Thor and Loki being brothers (even adopted). It's why there was a considerably larger fuss kicked up about Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Gerard Butler playing gods of Eygpt in the titular film: because that was actually SUPPOSED to be Horus and Set.

While the Witcher isn't actual Polish myth or an actual defined figure, it's made by someone of that culture, strongly inspired by that culture, and could be a positive representation for that ethnic group (which, at least in the UK, doesn't have a great public image). In that respect, I see no reason it shouldn't be like Black Panther.


To be fair, in the Marvel Universe that IS Thor and Loki and Odin and so on. Those ARE the Norse gods. That Thor is the same Thor the Norse were telling stories about in the Prose Eda.
Not really. Unless the MCU Edda is very different to ours. In our Edda, I believe Thor is red-headed, married to Sif, and was a lover of a frost giant. Loki wasn't adopted, and I actually believe was closer to Odin's counterpart than Thor's. Very different to the MCU Asgardians.

MCU Heimdall is not the same Heimdall as the Edda.


Yes he is. Just because the Norse told the stories over and over again for centuries and got details wrong or shifted the stores doesn't mean that they were not based on those people. The Prose Edda is, already in our world, a extended game of telephone in which one person collected a bunch of verbally handed down myths and legends and compiled them into a single volume. Add to that actual entiies who come and go from the world as they please and you have the Marvel Universes Norse Gods.

Black Panther takes place in a fictional version of the real world. It has an Africa. Wakanda is a fictional country with a fictional culture that isn't anybodies to be represented. The few real world africans we saw in that movie were in the opening scene and were militants transporting women and children to be recruited or killed or raped or turned into slaves. The analog with poland and the witcher doesn't exist.
Africa doesn't mean black. It's fictional, they could be any skin colour, any ethnicity. If anything, their isolationism should actually have prompted some kind of racial divergence - if it was even real.

So if Black Panther WAS truly fictional with no representation, why do so many people view it as such? Death of the Author: while it might not have been intended to be anyone's culture*, it has been adopted into black cultures globally.

The Witcher have the same analog, with both settings being strongly based in real world cultural cues, taking from real world aesthetics or influence, but both being ultimately fictional. Again, I don't mind if Ciri wasn't Polish. I do have an issue that they seemingly don't permit for a Polish actress despite that being a very clear cultural influence on the setting.

*and I do think it was quite clearly intended to be significant for black people.


Try watching Black Panther again with your Race Blind glasses on. Watch it next to Iron man. Thor. Dr. Strange. It's just another Marvel movie doing the character in the title justice. It's not meant to be significant for anyone. It's meant to push the story forward and sell merch. THAT is the significant part. The fact that black panther is JUST a movie is what makes it so special. The very moment it is MEANT to be making some kind of statement is the very moment it stops being special. BP is as race blind as you can get specifically because it just is what it is.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 06:09:34


Post by: dogma


Disregard, I did not read through the argument of which I want no part.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 13:13:37


Post by: Tannhauser42


 dogma wrote:
Disregard, I did not read through the argument of which I want no part.


We can go with a different, but equally divisive, argument: Team Yen or Team Triss?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 13:15:56


Post by: Galas


Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 13:33:24


Post by: djones520


So, saw a thing yesterday that the BAME calling was actually for members of Polish ethnicity, which I guess in Britain technically fits into the BAME category.

May just be total smoke being blown, but someone on Reddit posted about a Polish 17 year old friend of theirs who had been called in for casting for the role.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 15:09:31


Post by: BaconCatBug


 djones520 wrote:
So, saw a thing yesterday that the BAME calling was actually for members of Polish ethnicity, which I guess in Britain technically fits into the BAME category.

May just be total smoke being blown, but someone on Reddit posted about a Polish 17 year old friend of theirs who had been called in for casting for the role.
Polish people are not "Black/Asian Minority Ethnic".


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 15:28:48


Post by: nou


That was a separate call for polish actresses located in Poland, announced only after the original BAME rage outburst.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 15:35:27


Post by: Lance845


 Galas wrote:
Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.


Like all choices in witcher they are BOTH bad people.

Shani. The only decent person in the world.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 16:48:11


Post by: Dreadwinter


 Lance845 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.


Like all choices in witcher they are BOTH bad people.

Shani. The only decent person in the world.


Okay, but Triss is a way better person than Yen is portrayed as in the games. That is without even going in to how bad of a person she is in the books.

And with that I announce I am team Yen, because I like the crazy.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 16:58:49


Post by: Formosa


 Lance845 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Triss without a doubt. Yennefer is an awfull person.


Like all choices in witcher they are BOTH bad people.

Shani. The only decent person in the world.


meh.....Triss all the way


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 18:49:33


Post by: Lance845


Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 20:30:08


Post by: Galas


 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


I was gonna said "It is for the better, Yennefer does not deserve Geralt" but then I hate Geralt so I actually believe he and Yennefer are just perfect for each other.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/15 21:30:51


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/17 05:04:49


Post by: dogma


 BaconCatBug wrote:
Polish people are not "Black/Asian Minority Ethnic".


Really? Because in Chicago, where there a lot of people who are Polish or of Polish descent, actual Polish immigrants are considered an ethnic minority.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


I imagine that, in a world without birth control, a strapping man that can't get you knocked up is a pretty desirable dalliance.

As for the original question: Triss. Yen's appearance is the result of sorcery. That may seem shallow, but you can't trust a person who puts on that kind of mask.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/17 06:21:17


Post by: AlmightyWalrus


I think the point was that Poles usually are neither black nor asian.

Which of course begs the question why it's OK to want to specifically look for a Pole all of a sudden.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/17 20:28:25


Post by: Mr Nobody


I must say Yennefer, only because the books went to such lengths to show the complicated relationship between her and Geralt. Not much Triss in the books if I remember correctly.

As for the whole Ciri thing. She does have elf blood, and there's nothing about the inter-dimensional elves that says they have to be Tolkien style elves.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/18 00:39:06


Post by: djones520


 dogma wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
Polish people are not "Black/Asian Minority Ethnic".


Really? Because in Chicago, where there a lot of people who are Polish or of Polish descent, actual Polish immigrants are considered an ethnic minority.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


I imagine that, in a world without birth control, a strapping man that can't get you knocked up is a pretty desirable dalliance.

As for the original question: Triss. Yen's appearance is the result of sorcery. That may seem shallow, but you can't trust a person who puts on that kind of mask.


I believe it was pretty heavily implied that almost all of the Sorceresses appearances were magically altered.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/18 08:56:35


Post by: dogma


 djones520 wrote:

I believe it was pretty heavily implied that almost all of the Sorceresses appearances were magically altered.


Yen is outright stated to be both a hunchback, and over 100.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/18 11:11:28


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


Doesn't excuse the fact that she willingly manipulated an amnesiac for her own gain. Triss is one of the most vile characters in the series.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/18 19:12:18


Post by: Lance845


 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


Doesn't excuse the fact that she willingly manipulated an amnesiac for her own gain. Triss is one of the most vile characters in the series.


It really blows my mind how willingly everyone forgives triss for the absolute gak person she is.

At least with yen you can go... Well.. Geralt made that wish with a genie. So yen is constantly unsure if she actually likes geralt or if shes just had her free will stripped from her by some ass hole. Which is more or less equivalent to mind control and rape, but shes not actually capable of feeling how upset she should be because of the effects of the wish. She can logically work it out, but her emotions cant follow through.

More than anyone in this love triangle yen is the closest thing to an innocent whos had every other person involved feth her over and strip her of her own agency.

She gets to be an ass hole. She earned it.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 00:38:51


Post by: dogma


 Lance845 wrote:

At least with yen you can go... Well.. Geralt made that wish with a genie. So yen is constantly unsure if she actually likes geralt or if shes just had her free will stripped from her by some ass hole. Which is more or less equivalent to mind control and rape, but shes not actually capable of feeling how upset she should be because of the effects of the wish. She can logically work it out, but her emotions cant follow through.


Would you want to be with this person? With a sociopath?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 03:08:20


Post by: Dreadwinter


 Lance845 wrote:
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


Doesn't excuse the fact that she willingly manipulated an amnesiac for her own gain. Triss is one of the most vile characters in the series.


It really blows my mind how willingly everyone forgives triss for the absolute gak person she is.

At least with yen you can go... Well.. Geralt made that wish with a genie. So yen is constantly unsure if she actually likes geralt or if shes just had her free will stripped from her by some ass hole. Which is more or less equivalent to mind control and rape, but shes not actually capable of feeling how upset she should be because of the effects of the wish. She can logically work it out, but her emotions cant follow through.

More than anyone in this love triangle yen is the closest thing to an innocent whos had every other person involved feth her over and strip her of her own agency.

She gets to be an ass hole. She earned it.


Sure, what Geralt did was absolutely nuts and terrible. But by the time she meets Geralt to run her little game on him, she had been doing it for decades at a time. Basically Geralt cut her off before she could do her little disappearing act and vanish with whatever she wanted, leaving everybody else holding the bill and their pants. Lets not pretend she is some saint. Yen is just an awful person. Triss is only bad in that she hooked up with her besties man. The one Yen was always ditching for years at a time to move away and hook up with other men. The one Yen always treated like a gakky tool instead of a significant other.

Triss legitimately loves Geralt. Geralt loves both of them. Yen loves* Geralt. Yen may have actually fallen in love with Geralt, it is heavily implied. But for an independent woman, she takes her sweet time finding a way to break the genies wish. More likely she just enjoyed having a man who can kill whatever she wants attached to her.

*Due to Genie Wish

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


Doesn't excuse the fact that she willingly manipulated an amnesiac for her own gain. Triss is one of the most vile characters in the series.


How do you figure that?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 04:16:47


Post by: Lance845


 dogma wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

At least with yen you can go... Well.. Geralt made that wish with a genie. So yen is constantly unsure if she actually likes geralt or if shes just had her free will stripped from her by some ass hole. Which is more or less equivalent to mind control and rape, but shes not actually capable of feeling how upset she should be because of the effects of the wish. She can logically work it out, but her emotions cant follow through.


Would you want to be with this person? With a sociopath?


I wouldn't be with ANY of these people. They are ALL terrible.

Geralt is a piece of a gak for mind controlling Yen. Yens a piece of gak for running a con man scheme on men. Triss is a piece of gak for abusing a amnesiac to do exactly what Geralt did to Yen with the added caveat that she also fethed over her best friend in the process.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
[
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


Doesn't excuse the fact that she willingly manipulated an amnesiac for her own gain. Triss is one of the most vile characters in the series.


How do you figure that?


You know how if you have sex with someone who is too wasted to say "no" that you raped them even if sober they MIGHT have said yes because they were too gone to make an actual choice?

Well, if you find an amnesiac and then you twist things around so that they live the life you want them to instead of living their actual life, for your own gain, including getting sex out of it then it's also rape. You're a gak person who used somebodies broken mental state to get laid.


Yennifer might be a massive con artist who lies and manipulates to get what she wants and then disappears but at least every person she does it too is of their right mind to make the choice. Geralt and Triss on the other hand...

What Geralt does to Yen and Triss does to Geralt isn't far removed from what Kilgrave (the Purple Man) does to Jessica Jones.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 11:50:37


Post by: Inquisitor Gideon


 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


Doesn't excuse the fact that she willingly manipulated an amnesiac for her own gain. Triss is one of the most vile characters in the series.


It really blows my mind how willingly everyone forgives triss for the absolute gak person she is.

At least with yen you can go... Well.. Geralt made that wish with a genie. So yen is constantly unsure if she actually likes geralt or if shes just had her free will stripped from her by some ass hole. Which is more or less equivalent to mind control and rape, but shes not actually capable of feeling how upset she should be because of the effects of the wish. She can logically work it out, but her emotions cant follow through.

More than anyone in this love triangle yen is the closest thing to an innocent whos had every other person involved feth her over and strip her of her own agency.

She gets to be an ass hole. She earned it.


Sure, what Geralt did was absolutely nuts and terrible. But by the time she meets Geralt to run her little game on him, she had been doing it for decades at a time. Basically Geralt cut her off before she could do her little disappearing act and vanish with whatever she wanted, leaving everybody else holding the bill and their pants. Lets not pretend she is some saint. Yen is just an awful person. Triss is only bad in that she hooked up with her besties man. The one Yen was always ditching for years at a time to move away and hook up with other men. The one Yen always treated like a gakky tool instead of a significant other.

Triss legitimately loves Geralt. Geralt loves both of them. Yen loves* Geralt. Yen may have actually fallen in love with Geralt, it is heavily implied. But for an independent woman, she takes her sweet time finding a way to break the genies wish. More likely she just enjoyed having a man who can kill whatever she wants attached to her.

*Due to Genie Wish

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Consider if your significant other had amnesia while you were on vacation so your best friend decided to move in on them since they cant remember you.

Triss is that friend. She doesnt even feel bad about it.


Keep in mind that, as far as Triss knew at the time of the first game, Yennefer was dead. So, Geralt was an open playing field again. Very open, considering just how many encounters Geralt can have with the ladies in the first game.


Doesn't excuse the fact that she willingly manipulated an amnesiac for her own gain. Triss is one of the most vile characters in the series.


How do you figure that?


Do I really need to explain how taking advantage of an amnesiac for personal gain is vile?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 13:03:03


Post by: Mysterio


Probably not, as someone else already did about 7 hours before you...


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 14:13:03


Post by: Tannhauser42


I must be missing something, because I don't remember the books explicitly starting what Geralt's last wish actually was. So why the assumption that Geralt forced Yen to love him? The only in-book explanation I remember is that the only way to save Yen would be for Geralt to wish for their fates to be bound together.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 14:22:44


Post by: Lance845


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I must be missing something, because I don't remember the books explicitly starting what Geralt's last wish actually was. So why the assumption that Geralt forced Yen to love him? The only in-book explanation I remember is that the only way to save Yen would be for Geralt to wish for their fates to be bound together.


Its in the games. And to be fair, Geralt with the Genie didnt understand the consequences of the wish he made. But not understanding the consequences and having sex with her repeatedly after the fact are 2 different things. Yen and Geralt are always concerned that their feelings for each other are only a part of the wish. And in witcher 3 there is even dialog choices that make that true.

But Triss... fething Triss. She KNOWS what shes doing when geralt has amnesia. She just sees opportunity and pounces.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 14:35:20


Post by: Tannhauser42


I am well aware of the games' treatment regarding the last wish, and I don't recall the games explicitly stating what it was either, just the effects of it.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 17:17:27


Post by: dogma


 Lance845 wrote:

You know how if you have sex with someone who is too wasted to say "no" that you raped them even if sober they MIGHT have said yes because they were too gone to make an actual choice?


He was killed and subsequently revived, that is not at all the same thing as drinking too much.

 Lance845 wrote:

Well, if you find an amnesiac and then you twist things around so that they live the life you want them to instead of living their actual life, for your own gain..


His amnesia is a narrative convenience; what would his "actual life" be?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 19:00:03


Post by: Lance845


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I am well aware of the games' treatment regarding the last wish, and I don't recall the games explicitly stating what it was either, just the effects of it.


Sure. So?

It doesnt matter exactly what it was. What matters is what its done to her and that it was done to her, good intentions or not, by him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 dogma wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:

You know how if you have sex with someone who is too wasted to say "no" that you raped them even if sober they MIGHT have said yes because they were too gone to make an actual choice?


He was killed and subsequently revived, that is not at all the same thing as drinking too much.


And? What put him in a broken state doesnt actually matter. Triss saw the broken state and took advantage.


 Lance845 wrote:

Well, if you find an amnesiac and then you twist things around so that they live the life you want them to instead of living their actual life, for your own gain..


His amnesia is a narrative convenience; what would his "actual life" be?


He had an adopted daughter and a women he was in love with that was Triss's best friend. Triss was the person who could and should have taken him home to the wolf school castle and/or helped him regain his memory. Instead she used it as a chance to get her feth on.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 20:36:01


Post by: dogma


 Lance845 wrote:

And? What put him in a broken state doesnt actually matter. Triss saw the broken state and took advantage.


It doesn't matter that his parents made him a Witcher?

 Lance845 wrote:

He had an adopted daughter and a women he was in love with that was Triss's best friend. Triss was the person who could and should have taken him home to the wolf school castle and/or helped him regain his memory. Instead she used it as a chance to get her feth on.


Geralt, being fully of his own mind, could have said no.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 21:35:53


Post by: Mr Nobody


I would just like to point out that most, if not all the sorcerers were quite manipulative and self centered sociopaths in the books. Including Yennefer and Triss.

I would also like to point out that Geralt slept with everyone, with or without amnesia.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/19 23:07:31


Post by: Tannhauser42


 Lance845 wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I am well aware of the games' treatment regarding the last wish, and I don't recall the games explicitly stating what it was either, just the effects of it.


Sure. So?

It doesnt matter exactly what it was. What matters is what its done to her and that it was done to her, good intentions or not, by him.


Let's be clear on this, it wasn't just done "to her" as it was done to him, as well. In order to save her life, he wished for their fates to be intertwined, there is no mention anywhere that he wished for them to love each other (they did not, in fact, like each other one bit when they met in that story). The love part is a side effect of how the djinn fulfilled the wish (that ever popular "corrupt-a-wish" in action). To claim that Geralt forced her to love him is simply untrue, because he didn't do that, the djinn did that.




He had an adopted daughter and a women he was in love with that was Triss's best friend. Triss was the person who could and should have taken him home to the wolf school castle and/or helped him regain his memory. Instead she used it as a chance to get her feth on.


And, at this point, I think I'm done. It's clear you never even played the first game, because that's precisely how it fething starts, with Geralt found and taken to Kaer Morhen where the other Witchers and Triss do all they can to help him.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/20 00:54:45


Post by: Lance845


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I am well aware of the games' treatment regarding the last wish, and I don't recall the games explicitly stating what it was either, just the effects of it.


Sure. So?

It doesnt matter exactly what it was. What matters is what its done to her and that it was done to her, good intentions or not, by him.


Let's be clear on this, it wasn't just done "to her" as it was done to him, as well. In order to save her life, he wished for their fates to be intertwined, there is no mention anywhere that he wished for them to love each other (they did not, in fact, like each other one bit when they met in that story). The love part is a side effect of how the djinn fulfilled the wish (that ever popular "corrupt-a-wish" in action). To claim that Geralt forced her to love him is simply untrue, because he didn't do that, the djinn did that.


100% true that the Djinn did the actual wish fulfillment. Also 100% true that it was Geralt that made the wish. I didn't say Geralt INTENTIONALLY forced Yen to love him. In fact I mentioned that his intentions didn't matter. The EFFECT of HIS actions is something SHE has to suffer the consequences of. That Geralt is ALSO suffering the consequences of his actions isn't something to pitty Geralt for. They were his actions. He SHOULD suffer the consequences of them.




He had an adopted daughter and a women he was in love with that was Triss's best friend. Triss was the person who could and should have taken him home to the wolf school castle and/or helped him regain his memory. Instead she used it as a chance to get her feth on.


And, at this point, I think I'm done. It's clear you never even played the first game, because that's precisely how it fething starts, with Geralt found and taken to Kaer Morhen where the other Witchers and Triss do all they can to help him.


Yeah, and then what does Triss do? Did she bang him in Kaer Morhen? Yes she did.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/20 11:24:30


Post by: Yodhrin


"Intentions shouldn't matter"? Errr, no that's not how it works.

If you tell your employee "Make some sandwiches for our meeting later" and they poison everyone, they are the ones responsible for that, not you because you asked them to make sandwiches.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/20 15:14:05


Post by: Galas


Yeah... I don't think making a wish to save someones life that then gets twisted so you two end up fictionally loving each other is the same as wishing for someone to love you. Like. Nothing alike. Even if the end result is the same.

Also... isn't Geralt like... banging every woman he encounters, both in the games and in the books, even when he is supposed to be in a relationship with Yenn?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/20 18:37:41


Post by: Lance845


Its closer to, if my intention is to bake you a cake to lift your spirits and instead that cake makes you spend the afternoon gaking your brains out then it doesnt matter how good my intentions were you are still paying for my actions.

Geralt intended to save her life. So he made a wish with an entity known to feth with everyone and twist the wishes they grant in unexpected and unintended ways. As a result Yen pays for geralts actions.

Also, i never said geralt was a great guy to be in a relationship with either. In fact i said they were all bad people. Geralt will and does feth everything he meets.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/20 18:41:34


Post by: Dreadwinter


Saying Geralt was taken advantage of by Triss is probably the funniest interpretation of the events I have seen. Kind of like the interpretation that Geralt somehow took advantage of Yen with the wish.

Geralt would have slept with Triss with or without the amnesia and the wish was very underpowered. For a wish making the two "love" each other, they sure spent a lot of time apart. Like, years apart at a time without seeing or talking to each other.

Sounds like a gakky wish.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/20 18:46:49


Post by: Lance845


Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. Yeah, geralts a gak person who would bang triss anyway.

On the other hand triss is a gak person who lept at that specific opportunity to get banged. She COULD have been a good enough person to not do it then. But she wasnt and she did.

Yen spends years trying to get away from geralt specifically because of the wish and always ends up back in his life anyway because of the wish.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/20 21:22:29


Post by: Dreadwinter


 Lance845 wrote:
Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. Yeah, geralts a gak person who would bang triss anyway.

On the other hand triss is a gak person who lept at that specific opportunity to get banged. She COULD have been a good enough person to not do it then. But she wasnt and she did.

Yen spends years trying to get away from geralt specifically because of the wish and always ends up back in his life anyway because of the wish.


So you could interpret the wish as connecting their destinies and not forcing Yen in to love. It seems they always find each other again but nothing keeps them together. So they could find each other by destiny, say hey, then vanish for years at a time.

As for Triss, you are blaming her for human nature. "She slept with a man who is known for sleeping around with lots of women! WHAT A TERRIBLE PERSON!" Doesn't really have a lot of weight to it. You can't even say she was attempting to steal him from Yen here.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/21 02:36:41


Post by: Lance845


 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:
Each person is individually responsible for their own actions. Yeah, geralts a gak person who would bang triss anyway.

On the other hand triss is a gak person who lept at that specific opportunity to get banged. She COULD have been a good enough person to not do it then. But she wasnt and she did.

Yen spends years trying to get away from geralt specifically because of the wish and always ends up back in his life anyway because of the wish.


So you could interpret the wish as connecting their destinies and not forcing Yen in to love. It seems they always find each other again but nothing keeps them together. So they could find each other by destiny, say hey, then vanish for years at a time.


You feel free to interpret the effects of the wish however you want to. In fact Witcher 3 lets you do just that. One of the options has all of yours (Geralts) and Yens feelings disappear as soon as the wish is undone. Another has your feelings stay. That wasn't the point though. The point was that Yen, for years, didn't know and couldn't know because of the wish. Her running away from Geralt is her being unsure because she can't be sure because of the wish. Something SHE didn't choose. Something that was chosen for her, intentionally or not, by Geralt.

As for Triss, you are blaming her for human nature. "She slept with a man who is known for sleeping around with lots of women! WHAT A TERRIBLE PERSON!" Doesn't really have a lot of weight to it. You can't even say she was attempting to steal him from Yen here.


No. Triss sleeping with a dude who is known for sleeping around is one thing.

Triss sleeping with that dude when he was mentally broken and she knew it is terrible.

Her doing it when that dude was an item of her best friend is just icing on the terrible person cake.

Again, take your significant other. Give them amnesia. Have YOUR best friend who, turns out, has been carrying a flame for your partner decide "nows my chance!" and then use their amnesia to get their rocks off with the person they had always pined after. Apparently you would high five your friend and tell them good on them for taking advantage of your partners vulnerable state for personal gain? Great.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/21 13:39:30


Post by: Galas


If my partner is someone I actually don't know if I like and is famous for having sex with everybody in something I assume is some kind of open relationship (I doubt Yenneffer didn't had sex in all those years she was doing their thing), then yeah I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Triss did the bad thing of taking advantage of an amnesiac. Ok. I concede that. But the part about having sex with the "boyfriend" of Yenn? Thats not really relevant with the context of all the characters.
Of course, taking advantage (Even if is small because the dude would have done the same if he had his memories) of an amnesiac is bad enough.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/21 16:51:48


Post by: BaconCatBug


So, something I found on the internet, sums up my problems with this Netflix adaptation perfectly:
The Witcher
An upcoming Netflix series based on books and video games set in a fictional world inspired by European fantasy and folklore. Becuase the world the series takes place is fictional, the race of the characters should not matter when it comes to casting actors to play their roles. Therefore, for the sake of diversity, it should be acceptable for a character or group of characters who have been canonically described as caucasian to have their race changed when considering actors to play said roles.



Avatar: The Last Airbender
An upcoming Netflix series based on an animated show set in a fictional world inspired by various Asian cultures. Despite the world the show takes place being entirely fictional, the race of the actors playing the roles of the characters must and should reflect the original portrayals as seen in the show. Therefore, for the sake of staying true to the original material, only actors of Asian, Middle Eastern, South American and Native Inuit ethnicities should be considered to play the roles of these characters. In addition, the inclusion of caucasian actors for any role will not only be considered objectionable, it will also be openly protested.



Go on social media and you’ll find people are literally celebrating the fact that the show-runners for Last Airbender have made it clear that there will be no whitewashing of any characters in the series (i/e, no white people will be considered for casting). I loved the animated series, but this sort of unapologetic bigotry leaves me with such a rotten feeling in my stomach that I find myself unable to get excited for this new live action adaption.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/09/21 18:05:47


Post by: Galas


Wait what? Theres gonna be a live-action The Last Airbender series?

I don't know how to feel about that after the movie.
Personally I celebrate that they are gonna cast accordingly with how they are represented in the series. Just as I disagree with changing people from the witcher.

Now , I don't see how is bigotry or even hipocrisy what the showruners of the Last Airbender are doing. It is not like they are the same guys behind The Witcher adaptation.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/10 16:00:53


Post by: Captain Joystick


Reports in that Freya Allan and Anya Chalotra have been cast as Ciri and Yen respectively.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/10 16:02:03


Post by: djones520


 Captain Joystick wrote:
Reports in that Freya Allan and Anya Chalotra have been cast as Ciri and Yen respectively.


Don't know them acting wise at all, but their appearances both seem to be on point.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/10 16:48:38


Post by: Mysterio


Did BAME go out the window?

Or was BAME not a consideration for Ciri - as per the leaked casting call?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/10 17:25:17


Post by: Captain Joystick


Mimi Ndiweni has been cast as one of two as-of-yet unnamed apprentices to MyAnna Burning's sorceress Tissaia - which lines up with the casting call needing her to be able to play 14.

Given the rest of the cast announced thus far... I think someone mushed two different casting calls together.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/11 17:39:54


Post by: Tannhauser42


I guess I'm getting old, I see those names and all I can think is "who?"


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/11 18:31:02


Post by: nels1031


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I guess I'm getting old, I see those names and all I can think is "who?"


Nah, thats kind of the norm for shows with large casts.

I think when GoT first came out, offhand all I recognized were Sean Bean and Lena Headey. You'll see more familiar faces in later seasons if it gets more popular, and maybe a few of the initially unknown actors will become legit stars, like in GoT's case.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 17:08:33


Post by: Necros


Hmm.. maybe I'm biased from the game, but he kinda looks too young to me. Or is he supposed to be a younger Geralt?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 18:28:08


Post by: Voss


Shouldn't he look threatening in some way, rather than vaguely... morose?

@Necros- yeah. Needs stubble and weathering. Bit too late 20s executive apprentice with hair extensions.
Or a 'hair metal' version of Clark Kent, for some reason...


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 18:29:15


Post by: djones520


Yeah... he needs a beard.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 21:12:32


Post by: Lance845


Could be early years geralt. Good time to explore in my opinion. Weve already seen the later and end years for him in video game form. Would be nice to see a little something new.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 21:12:55


Post by: Mysterio


Pretty sure that he will, in fact, be bearded, come filming time!


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 21:27:40


Post by: d-usa


They can do a reverse Justice League and give him a CGI beard.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 23:00:18


Post by: Tannhauser42


It is titled as a costume and make-up test, so it's likely not the completely-finished-and-ready-for-filming version. Still needs some beard action.

Which is interesting as to how much Witcher 3 has set our expectations for his appearance. He didn't have a beard in the first two games. Likely not in the books, either (can't remember), as a character TW3 comments that he has grown a beard.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/10/31 23:52:23


Post by: BaconCatBug


The problem is that the actor simply doesn't look the part and the costume looks worse than low budget cosplays. You'd think with all the money saved by plagiarising Elric they could afford some good costumes.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/01 00:29:11


Post by: djones520


 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It is titled as a costume and make-up test, so it's likely not the completely-finished-and-ready-for-filming version. Still needs some beard action.

Which is interesting as to how much Witcher 3 has set our expectations for his appearance. He didn't have a beard in the first two games. Likely not in the books, either (can't remember), as a character TW3 comments that he has grown a beard.


Yeah, trying not to set my expectations around that game to much, as I know this is supposed to be based more on the books, but damn it was such a ground breaking and amazing game, it's hard not to.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/01 00:40:55


Post by: Voss


I've heard it is somewhat different for folks in Eastern Europe who read the books first and the game maybe never, but for a Netflix show... I don't think it unreasonable to suspect it's _probably_ aimed at the game audience.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/01 01:29:31


Post by: djones520


Voss wrote:
I've heard it is somewhat different for folks in Eastern Europe who read the books first and the game maybe never, but for a Netflix show... I don't think it unreasonable to suspect it's _probably_ aimed at the game audience.


I never played Witcher 1 and 2, but 3 at least did a good job of trying to be faithful to the book source material. There was a ton of little easter eggs about the books, multiple references to them, etc.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/01 14:14:52


Post by: Turnip Jedi


 nels1031 wrote:


I think when GoT first came out, offhand all I recognized were Sean Bean and Lena Headey. You'll see more familiar faces in later seasons if it gets more popular, and maybe a few of the initially unknown actors will become legit stars, like in GoT's case.


I think part of that very much depends on which side of the pond you're on, a lot of the early adult cast were fairly common faces on British TV, maybe due to filming locations or bigger actors being a bit sniffy about a telly show about tits and dragons

Now Netflix et al is 'acceptable' you'll most likely see 'names' from the get go

still not convinced Cavill is the right call but he might surprise me


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/01 16:44:28


Post by: Captain Joystick


Voss wrote:
I've heard it is somewhat different for folks in Eastern Europe who read the books first and the game maybe never, but for a Netflix show... I don't think it unreasonable to suspect it's _probably_ aimed at the game audience.


If so, they've chosen an interesting way to go about it, what with getting the original author involved and saying they were using the books as their primary inspiration.

And yes, the games take place after the books (certain flashback dreams directly referencing the books (and then called out in-game for not being directly faithful to the books!) nonwithstanding) so decelerated aging aside they can get away with a younger feeling Geralt.

While it is just a makeup test, if they felt confident enough to share it we're probably getting something pretty close in the end.

...

And I prefer this costume to the one you start with in 3.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/01 18:20:45


Post by: Lance845


Well the books AND the game are primarily being told to the reader/player through a 3rd party narrator. The games are all stories Dandalion is telling latter. Which is why all the journal entries are written the way they are. And the books are sometimes geralt sitting somewhere telling stories.

Which makes all of their content the unreliable narrator. None of it can be taken for fact.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/03 21:13:14


Post by: dogma


 djones520 wrote:
Yeah... he needs a beard.


He needs to be Tim Roth...Jerome Flynn would work too, as would Nikolaj Coster-Waldau; but they're both working.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Which is interesting as to how much Witcher 3 has set our expectations for his appearance. He didn't have a beard in the first two games. Likely not in the books, either (can't remember), as a character TW3 comments that he has grown a beard.


I think it extends beyond the visual, in the games Geralt has always been portrayed as a haggard old man who gets swept up in things he would rather be left out of. Henry Cavil's Geralt looks like Superman with a wig.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/04 22:39:30


Post by: Kale


I dont think its that he is old, more world weary.
He has seen more petty evil and selfish acts then any one would want and done more that he ever wanted getting roped in to them, whether he ended up for filling them or tried to stop them to want to get involved ever again.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2018/11/08 00:55:52


Post by: Luciferian


After looking at the Twitter replies to the casting announcement I'm kind of disappointed that Mads Mikkelson didn't get the part.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/19 22:39:15


Post by: nels1031


Teaser :




The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/20 03:10:53


Post by: Dreadwinter


I liked that. Looks like they are going to show Yennefer before and after her change and I really like that. It might give her character a little more depth.

I was one of the people who questioned their choice for Geralt. But he is fitting in to it quite well. Better than Mads Mikkelsen could have, I am afraid.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/20 03:44:51


Post by: Thargrim


I'm willing to give it a chance, but i've got a funny feeling it'll turn out just like so many other video game adaptations. It's a curse that just won't shake.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/20 04:17:18


Post by: Ahtman


 Thargrim wrote:
I'm willing to give it a chance, but i've got a funny feeling it'll turn out just like so many other video game adaptations. It's a curse that just won't shake.


If it helps this isn't an adaptation of the video game but of the books which the games were based on.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/20 14:15:51


Post by: Voss


Interesting and consistent lack of a second sword, which is kind of weird for such a signature thing.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/20 17:05:09


Post by: SnotlingPimpWagon


 Ahtman wrote:
 Thargrim wrote:
I'm willing to give it a chance, but i've got a funny feeling it'll turn out just like so many other video game adaptations. It's a curse that just won't shake.


If it helps this isn't an adaptation of the video game but of the books which the games were based on.

Judging by the cast choices, it’s not even that. More like its own thing. Nearly all female characters look nothing like the books described, to put it lightly.
Dunno, I was cautiously excited before the teaser, now - not so much.
And Geralt’s bare physique looks comical. Oh, and Nilf armor is just plain ridiculous. Like raisins and garbage bags had many babies


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/20 17:11:54


Post by: petrov27


Voss wrote:
Interesting and consistent lack of a second sword, which is kind of weird for such a signature thing.


I think always wearing two swords was more of a game thing vs. a book thing so if they are doing the book story one worn may be more "canon." What i recall from books was that steel was worn always and silver was kept wrapped on Roach and only brought out for special occasions when fighting monsters who were damaged by it?

I also recall there were times where he was lucky to have any sword at all - I think he used one loaned to him by one of his dwarven companions for the better part of three books?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/20 23:53:10


Post by: Ahtman


SnotlingPimpWagon wrote:
Judging by the cast choices, it’s not even that.


Well that is the starting place, the books not the games, but I agree it is doing its own thing.

petrov27 wrote:
What i recall from books was that steel was worn always and silver was kept wrapped on Roach and only brought out for special occasions when fighting monsters who were damaged by it?


This is correct.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/21 04:22:55


Post by: Dreadwinter


petrov27 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Interesting and consistent lack of a second sword, which is kind of weird for such a signature thing.


I think always wearing two swords was more of a game thing vs. a book thing so if they are doing the book story one worn may be more "canon." What i recall from books was that steel was worn always and silver was kept wrapped on Roach and only brought out for special occasions when fighting monsters who were damaged by it?

I also recall there were times where he was lucky to have any sword at all - I think he used one loaned to him by one of his dwarven companions for the better part of three books?


Pretty much this. Having the silver sword on him at all times was a game thing. He didn't get out of bed every day looking to fight a new monster. Monsters were rare in the books. No need to keep it on constantly.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/07/24 23:38:37


Post by: Argive


Saw a trailer for this the other day. Very hyped.

I'm a big fan of Carvil - bring on the archetypical musclebound Hench hero!

The Polish film Called "wiedzmin" (The witcher/warlock)

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0300657/

I was a big fan of this movie when it came out. It predates the 1st game by 6 years. Pretty sure it was the only fantasy flick Poland ever produced. I remember it being a great fantasy flick for me as a kid and really got me into the genre. I think ti probably di not age well at all haha.

The Netflix series cant be much worse!



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 16:32:09


Post by: reds8n








The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 16:41:22


Post by: Necros


Can't wait


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 17:04:31


Post by: Lance845


Looking great.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 17:06:01


Post by: Sterling191


The degree to which Cavill appears to be going to nail the particular flavor of voice gravel that Cockel gave game-Geralt is surprising, but refreshingly so.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 19:52:52


Post by: petrov27


Decent trailer that... Cautiously optimistic. Interested in how they are going to follow the books - they cover like approx 18 years of time if I recall? Looking at the cast list they have characters that appear in the very early timeline (eg Calanthe) and others that are pretty late in the books (eg Fringilla) - wonder if they are going to jump around a bunch in the timeline or somehow drastically condense it...


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 20:46:49


Post by: Captain Joystick


It does look good. I'm looking more and more forward to it the more I see of it.

I would like to have a word with whoever cuts together all these trailers who thinks editing dialogue together to have people say things like "character X is your destiny" is so clever though.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 20:53:35


Post by: Elbows


I guess you could say...

Witcher is coming...



YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 21:00:05


Post by: warboss


The trailer looks good but the reports coming out today (maybe old news but it's new for me at least) is that the show will be told from the perspective not of Geralt like in the books (or the video games) but rather from Ciri's and Yennefer's perspectives. Just like with the upcoming Netflix Masters of the Universe, the main character that the series is known for is to some degree being sidelined. I hope the reports are inaccurate.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 22:14:48


Post by: petrov27


um, well speaking for the books - at least once past the short stories, the perspective changes through quite a few different characters. There is also much time spent with Ciri and what is going on with her situation (its been awhile but of the last three books maybe 1/2 or more is from her perspective?)


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 22:22:11


Post by: Sterling191


Yeah, Geralt isn’t remotely the only PoV character in the novels.

Also seriously looking at kvetching about She Ra when it just entered its 4th(?) season.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 22:27:57


Post by: OrlandotheTechnicoloured


Seems fun


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 22:30:45


Post by: Argive


Do we have a release date yet ?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 22:39:35


Post by: Sterling191


December 20


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 23:18:25


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Sterling191 wrote:
Yeah, Geralt isn’t remotely the only PoV character in the novels.
I hate to quote something I saw on another forum here:

Out of thirteen short stories, Yen shows up in three, and Ciri shows up in two. And in the second one, she is literally only present on the last page.

None of those feature their point of views.

So yes, as someone who read the books, multiple times at that, in the polish originals, the decision to put both of them on the forefront, when the show ostensibly intends on adapting the short stories, the decision to put the focus on them NOW, seems to be at least a little bit odd.

Like, it makes it almost certain that I won't see some of my favourite short stories adapted. Like Eternal Fire, which my personal favourite.


So, yeah...


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 23:21:03


Post by: Argive




Cheers!


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/10/31 23:28:59


Post by: warboss


Sterling191 wrote:

Also seriously looking at kvetching about She Ra when it just entered its 4th(?) season.


You're the only person talking about She Ra. Are you confused?



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/11/01 00:12:00


Post by: Lance845


 warboss wrote:
The trailer looks good but the reports coming out today (maybe old news but it's new for me at least) is that the show will be told from the perspective not of Geralt like in the books (or the video games) but rather from Ciri's and Yennefer's perspectives. Just like with the upcoming Netflix Masters of the Universe, the main character that the series is known for is to some degree being sidelined. I hope the reports are inaccurate.


If the show is framed as geralts exploits being told as stories thats not sidelining the main character its just a device for telling the story. All 3 witcher games are stories being told by dandelion. Many of the short stories in the books are either geralt or someone else telling the story to someone else.

Hes not being sidelined because its being told non linearly by another character.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/11/01 13:34:25


Post by: Captain Joystick


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
Yeah, Geralt isn’t remotely the only PoV character in the novels.
I hate to quote something I saw on another forum here:

Spoiler:
Out of thirteen short stories, Yen shows up in three, and Ciri shows up in two. And in the second one, she is literally only present on the last page.

None of those feature their point of views.

So yes, as someone who read the books, multiple times at that, in the polish originals, the decision to put both of them on the forefront, when the show ostensibly intends on adapting the short stories, the decision to put the focus on them NOW, seems to be at least a little bit odd.

Like, it makes it almost certain that I won't see some of my favourite short stories adapted. Like Eternal Fire, which my personal favourite.


So, yeah...

I haven't read any of the short stories. But I have read through (most of) Blood of Elves, and as I recall the perspective changes around plenty.

Not sure where people got the impression Netflix of all people would be making episodic adaption of the short stories.

Actually, I'm not sure where this 'Ciri and Yen are the perspective characters' thing is coming from? The whining I understand, but when I tried to look it up to see who announced it all I found were sites dedicated to whining about it.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/11/14 05:20:34


Post by: nels1031


Season 2 already greenlit. Sometimes a good sign.

Via Bloody Disgusting:

https://bloody-disgusting.com/tv/3593973/henry-cavills-geralt-prepares-battle-latest-witcher-imagery/

Netflix has shared new images from “The Witcher,” based on the best-selling fantasy series and debuting on the streaming service as a Christmas gift on December 20.

Additionally, we’ve learned that Netflix has already ordered up a second season before the first even arrives! The eight-episode second season is set to premiere in 2021.

Henry Cavill is Geralt of Rivia in the series that could very well be Netflix’s own version of “Game of Thrones”.

“The Witcher” is an epic tale of fate and family. Geralt of Rivia, a solitary monster hunter, struggles to find his place in a world where people often prove more wicked than beasts.

But when destiny hurtles him toward a powerful sorceress, and a young princess with a dangerous secret, the three must learn to navigate the increasingly volatile Continent together.

Further casting includes Eamon Farren (Twin Peaks) as Cahir, Joey Batey (Knightfall) as Jaskier, Lars Mikkelsen (House of Cards) as Stregobor, Royce Pierreson (Wanderlust) as Istredd, Maciej Musiał (1983) as Sir Lazlo, Wilson Radjou-Pujalte (Dickensian) as Dara, Anna Shaffer (Harry Potter) as Triss, Anya Chalotra (Wanderlust) as Yennefer and Freya Allan (Into the Badlands) as Ciri.

The full cast also includes Jodhi May (Game of Thrones) as Calanthe, Björn Hlynur Haraldsson (Fortitude) as Eist, Adam Levy (Knightfall) as Mousesack, MyAnna Buring (Kill List) as Tissaia, Mimi Ndiweni (Black Earth Rising) as Fringilla, Therica Wilson-Read (Profile) as Sabrina, and Millie Brady (The Last Kingdom) as Renfri


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/17 22:02:10


Post by: nels1031


Just about 2 days until this drops, for those that might have forgotten.

Kind of looking forward to it. I own all the games but never played them (Steam sale got me!) so maybe this will motivate me to re-install.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/17 22:14:48


Post by: Argive


I'm really looking forward to it! Cant wait. I paid no attention to any social media hype/anti hype and apart from the single time watching the original trailer I have avoided all spoilers so I'm going to be judging it purely on its own merit.

Me and my GF watched the original 2001 polish version of the Witcher movie today and she really liked it so we can watch the series together now as she though it was some lame ass game thing before despite explaining the books are a thing and they came first.. Now she knows better and she's totally onboard


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/19 00:32:33


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I just got a new 75" 4k TV. It gets delivered tomorrow, right when Witcher drops.

I hope I can get everything set up in time.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/19 00:40:22


Post by: warboss


Careful it doesn't melt in that heatwave of your's! Congrats on the new screen and all the glorious life size pron in your new future.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/19 02:29:32


Post by: Argive


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just got a new 75" 4k TV. It gets delivered tomorrow, right when Witcher drops.

I hope I can get everything set up in time.


I cross my fingers it gets delivered on time!


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/19 14:22:20


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 warboss wrote:
Careful it doesn't melt in that heatwave of your's! Congrats on the new screen and all the glorious life size pron in your new future.
Life size pron? Feth that! Life-sized Baby Yoda!


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 03:08:06


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 warboss wrote:
Careful it doesn't melt in that heatwave of your's! Congrats on the new screen and all the glorious life size pron in your new future.
Life size pron? Feth that! Life-sized Baby Yoda!


you've got your priorities straight


going back to the issue of POV characters looking at the episode summeries for season 1 I get entirely what they're doing. Season 1 is going to mostly involve the short stores (a mix of ones from the last wish and sword of destiny) but is mostly going be to about setting the main characters up for futyure seasons based on the books (blood of elves and it's sequals) thus we're getting a episode that's basicly a Yennifer orgin story (not sure if any of the novels fully detailed this out but even if not there's eneugh detail out there to flesh her story out and it'll need to be told given we're not going to get little hints and clues based on stuff like Geralt observing she may have once been a hunchback just by watching her movements etc)

Geralt Yen and Ciri all seem to be sharing the spotlight of central characters, which makes sense to me given what I've seen of the books. Hell, anyone whose played witcher 3 knows whose story
this really is. (hint: it's not Geralt)


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 03:52:42


Post by: Sasori


 nels1031 wrote:
Just about 2 days until this drops, for those that might have forgotten.

Kind of looking forward to it. I own all the games but never played them (Steam sale got me!) so maybe this will motivate me to re-install.


You are doing yourself a disservice by not playing The Witcher 3. It is probably my top game of the Decade, or at minimum in the top 3.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 03:56:44


Post by: nels1031


Ya, been told that before. Its just that I hate joining a franchise late. Would have to play the first two before I get into 3.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 04:16:24


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Not the first one. I didn't. I just read a very detailed synopsis. Honestly the hardest part was remembering everyone's names.

I would play the 2nd one though. It's an amazing game, and you'll get an attachment to some of the side characters that will make the 3rd one all the better.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 04:34:18


Post by: nels1031


I always thought it was like Mass Effect 1-3 where your story choices carry over, hence why I’d prefer to start at 1, but never really felt like it.

Is that not true?

I have a feeling this show will be the catalyst to make me install and play them, regardless.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 04:37:22


Post by: djones520


 nels1031 wrote:
I always thought it was like Mass Effect 1-3 where your story choices carry over, hence why I’d prefer to start at 1, but never really felt like it.

Is that not true?

I have a feeling this show will be the catalyst to make me install and play them, regardless.


There are some really brief moments where things that occurred in 1/2 could affect conversation in 3, but it's nothing important. Really just conversation pieces.

I've only played 3 myself. Loved it, to the extreme. Only game of the decade that comes close to me is RDR2, but it's a strong second.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 06:36:25


Post by: Lance845


I only played 3 and loved it. I tried to go back and play 2 after and it was unplayably bad by comparison mechanically. Just play 3. You don't need anything else.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 08:17:38


Post by: Adeptus Doritos


I've never played any of these games, but I have seen the monsters and such. Very awesome representation of the monsters, much like The Secret World.

I have always wanted to see something like that on the big screen or small screen. I will stick my head in and check this one out.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 09:29:20


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


 nels1031 wrote:
I always thought it was like Mass Effect 1-3 where your story choices carry over, hence why I’d prefer to start at 1, but never really felt like it.

Is that not true?

I have a feeling this show will be the catalyst to make me install and play them, regardless.


Nah there's not a huge carry over between the games. The choices that carry over are all pretty minor to the point you likely wouldn't notice if you played 1-3 vs just playing 3.

Sometimes you might feel like you should know a character when you don't, but that's just as likely to be thanks to Geralt's amnesia rather than because you didn't play 1 or 2, or a character from the books that wasn't introduced in the first 2 games.

The problem with playing 1 through 3 is the games got a lot better as they went, aside from some minor things, 2 isn't as good as 3 and unless you like the style of play, 1 can be difficult to get through. I don't think 1 has aged well, the combat system was passable for back in the day but doesn't stand up well next to modern games.

Granted, I do like the whole series from a story perspective, the think CDPR got right through the whole series was the story.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 11:11:35


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 nels1031 wrote:
I always thought it was like Mass Effect 1-3 where your story choices carry over, hence why I’d prefer to start at 1, but never really felt like it.

Is that not true?
Yes and no. I know that on my play through of Witcher 2 I killed the main bad guy, which is something you don't have to do. He has a small plotline in the third game and helps you out at one of the pivotal moments... but in my game he was not there, as I had killed him.

Thing is, at the start of the third game, you go through an interview with someone who asks you questions about what you did previously. You can use these answers to shape the background, either going with what you did or just going completely against it. It's a very clever system they invented.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 20:55:04


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Am on the second episode.

Bard is irritating.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/20 23:22:03


Post by: BrianDavion


on the third episode, so far so good but IMHO Triss was miscast. they could get away with changes to other characters etc but given the video games etc, I'd argue Triss in partiuclar was important to get right, he hair's too dark. it's brown and not a warm auburn


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 02:01:24


Post by: nels1031


Think I’m on episode 4, lost track because I was engrossed. I can’t speak to its accuracy to the books or games, but I dig it.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 02:38:37


Post by: BrianDavion


As someone whose read the books it's based on it's accuracy is pretty solid but is at the same time far from perfect. as alterations are made to allow for the story to be told, the biggest problem is the timelines not being in synch. and tha'sd something that could have been fixed simply by having a date pop up each time prespective shifts


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 03:23:34


Post by: Lance845


I think the various actors are really nailing the parts thus far. Cavils look and voice is great. I really appreciate the facial expresions he goes through when the little girl tells him to leave. Hurt, anger, then emotionless control as he stands to leave. Real good job all around thus far.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 03:57:08


Post by: Snrub


Just finished the 1st ep and I found it quite enjoyable.


I know the games well enough, but only have the vaguest of ideas about how the books play out (which is to say I know they tell a different story then the games), so I went into this expecting to see stuff that I wasn't all familiar with.

Initial impressions of the first episode. (NO SPOILERS HERE)
-Cavill makes for an excellent Geralt. He looks the part and he nailed Geralts voice and inflections. (at least from a game stand point)
-The fight scenes weren't bad. It's fairly quick action that doesn't linger on any combatants for any more then a second or two. Which you may or not think is a good thing. I also think they contained just the right amount of violence and gore. Enough to sate the inner-Khorne, but not so gruesome as to turn the less inclined away. Not GoT levels of gore and violence, but more then say the LotR movies.
-Monster/s look pretty alright. The kikimore at the start wasn't overly CGI looking. But again, that could be because the scenes have a lot of movement, so you don't get to focus on anything for too long to notice. (poor deer )
-Really nice to see Geralt using the witcher fighting styles in that back alley fight. They looked like some of the moves out of the first game which I thought was a nice touch.
-The armour he wears as well is very reminiscent of the style from one of the games, but I forget which. So clearly they have someone who is doing their research, taking notes and cues from the games, which I guess is what most people will be more familiar with and is probably the crowed they're largely trying to draw.

Keen to hope into the rest of them now! Good thing i've got 4 days off work, as this is gonna take up some time.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 06:32:00


Post by: BrianDavion


the armor is reminiscant of the Viper armor set, which is also the set you start out in.



replace the chainmail with rivats and you have the gear from the series,
there's already a mod out there that does just that more or less apparently.






but yeah really oogd over all, the only casting choice I'm not a fan of is Triss Marigold, she's just too... dark complexioned for triss IMHO


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 06:49:08


Post by: VictorVonTzeentch


Im really liking the show thus far, solid all around. I don't hate the Triss, but I can see why people would think shes not a good choice for the role.

Jaskier and episode 2 are great.

Cavill is great in this show.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 07:28:57


Post by: BrianDavion


 VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Im really liking the show thus far, solid all around. I don't hate the Triss, but I can see why people would think shes not a good choice for the role.

Jaskier and episode 2 are great.

Cavill is great in this show.


yeah keep in mind I don't HATE the triss casting it's just a moment where I can't help but feel it's off. really in a way Triss was one of the most difficult casting decisions for the witcher, given she's so prominant in the games


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 11:45:13


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Temporarily given up.

Got half way through episode 2, and it’s just not grabbing me.

Action scenes are usually decent, nice and visceral. But that Goat Man thing just looked awful.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 12:46:46


Post by: BrianDavion


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Temporarily given up.

Got half way through episode 2, and it’s just not grabbing me.

Action scenes are usually decent, nice and visceral. But that Goat Man thing just looked awful.


yeah Torque didn't look very good I agree, the monsters are MOSTLY better looking. I just finished the last episode and I enjoyed it muchly. the Battle of Sodden was pretty awesome. I'm EAGERLY looking forward to season 2


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 14:50:40


Post by: Yodhrin


So with all the stooshie a while back about the show's creators supposedly giving the baddies ballsack-textured armour because Men Bad and so looking like manbits reinforces that Baddies Bad, does the end result actually end up like the first year sociology student fanfic that sort of nonsense would lead you to expect, or did they keep a lid on it and come out with something decent?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 14:54:49


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


Its.....armour?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 14:55:52


Post by: Lance845


lol I have seen nothing that stands out as the texture of a ball sack.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 15:24:50


Post by: Arklite


The Nilfgaard armor does look pretty dumb, but they toned down some of the rumored idiocy.

All-in-all, it's actually a pretty decent adaptation, with fans of the books or games probably enjoying it more than others. It's basically all setting up for Season 2, so that may turn some people off.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 15:32:59


Post by: djones520


The Nilfgardian armor is a bit... weird... but I'm not buying it's because the show designers hate men.

Is there a lot of anti-man talk? Sure. There is also a lot of anti-human. Anti-elf. Anti-dwarf. Anti-everything. They're painting that the world is just a hateful place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One thing that I do like is their particular care to not have "light saber" moments, and Shadiversity calls them. They show a lot of kill blows actually working around the armor, and not just "I struck your full plate with a sword, and now you're dead."


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 15:51:10


Post by: LordofHats


Does anyone else find Yennifer's plot a complete drag on the story? I'm only 3 eps in so far, but I feel like whenever I'm getting into whatever Geralt is doing (great stuff) or Ciri is doing (its okay, assume it pays out later) in comes whiny little Yennifer in creepy hogwarts to completely spoil the good time and scream "why isn't this its own show it doesn't fit here."

Just me?


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 16:20:03


Post by: Lance845


The nature of magic and magic users is fairly i.portant to the over all plot and fleshing out Yens background will make her otherwise terrible person character more sympathetic.

Its a necessary evil.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 16:21:53


Post by: LordofHats


I find her completely unsympathetic though... All those magic types are a bunch of conniving dicks and I still find her the most unlikable of the lot XD


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 16:58:57


Post by: Lance845


Well yeah. They are all that. I didnt say it made her sympathetic. Just MORE sympathetic. Seeing her in her deformed state and having to struggle through it at least informs WHY shes the gak person she is instead of just being another in a line of gak people.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 21:42:02


Post by: Yodhrin


 djones520 wrote:
The Nilfgardian armor is a bit... weird... but I'm not buying it's because the show designers hate men.

Is there a lot of anti-man talk? Sure. There is also a lot of anti-human. Anti-elf. Anti-dwarf. Anti-everything. They're painting that the world is just a hateful place.


It was an actual thing that some of the people making the show reportedly said during production, I'm paraphrasing obviously since I can't be bothered to go and find the article, but it boiled down to "we made them look like ballsacks because they're Bad Men who are Men, which are Bad", and I was just wondering if any of that ludicrous kind of sentiment actually made it through to the final content of the show. I can no longer be arsed getting halfway into a new show before the cringey stuff reveals itself and sours things, so if I see any cringe-adjacent stuff prior to release I wait to watch until I've confirmed a lack of cringeitude.

It seems either they were talking gak or someone with more sense stepped in and filtered out the cringe, so I'll give it a look.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 21:47:45


Post by: BrianDavion


honestly the armor simply looks like a fluted gothic armor. it looks differant sure but fine,


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 21:55:03


Post by: trexmeyer


I haven't played the games more than 2-3 hours and never read the books. Finishing up the series now. It's fine. The CGI is spotty, the writing/acting is meh at times (especially episode 6), and some of the costuming is bad. Very tired of those awful crowns.

Spoiler:
I think my biggest actual complaint would be that the battle tactics in episode 8 are absolutely beyond stupid and the idea of just sacrificing mages for minimal value makes no sense to me.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/21 22:58:17


Post by: Necros


Just finished my binge. Enjoyed it all around, I thought Cavil nailed it for the most part. Wish there were more than 8 episodes.. now we gotta wait a year + for season 2? meh


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 00:02:12


Post by: djones520


 Necros wrote:
Just finished my binge. Enjoyed it all around, I thought Cavil nailed it for the most part. Wish there were more than 8 episodes.. now we gotta wait a year + for season 2? meh


Yeah, I did a 24 hour binge on the show, and while I enjoyed the hell out of it, I was very disappointed that it was only 8 episodes. You're exactly right though, Cavill crushed the role, even down to the voice.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 00:03:53


Post by: BrianDavion


 trexmeyer wrote:
I haven't played the games more than 2-3 hours and never read the books. Finishing up the series now. It's fine. The CGI is spotty, the writing/acting is meh at times (especially episode 6), and some of the costuming is bad. Very tired of those awful crowns.

Spoiler:
I think my biggest actual complaint would be that the battle tactics in episode 8 are absolutely beyond stupid and the idea of just sacrificing mages for minimal value makes no sense to me.


Spoiler:
Are you refering the the nifgardian tacics of sacrificing mages to shoot fireballs? I saw that as an important scene to develop the CHARACTER of the Nilfgardians. Your life, to Niflgard, is worthless except by how you can serve the state. they will happily use you all up for any advantage.




The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 01:28:28


Post by: kurhanik


Only watched the first episode so far, and I am liking it though I feel it has a few issues. If they get hammered out in the following episodes then all is well.

Things I did not like:
Spoiler:

The Cintra plot felt very, for lack of better term, empty. It was excusable for the first parts where they were having a ball and talking things up, but the flight from the city just felt lacking. It was a single guy on horseback riding down what looked like a hallway chased by a single guy on horseback. Then she stunned what I assume to be Cahir and fled in an empty field outside of town. Compare to the books, where a unit of horsemen were escorting her out, people from both sides grabbing her as her current handler was killed, and then learning later on the truth of what happened with her and Cahir.

The whole bit about ultimatums. In the book, it was explicit - the ultimatum was that Renfri was going to start murdering townsfolk if Stregobor didn't leave his tower, as he was perfectly safe from her inside but she could easily off him if he left. In the show, it felt like they were bandying about the word ultimatum a lot, but for the most part it seemed like she just planned to kill Stregobor and only use the child as bait. I can live with the other changes they made to the Blaviken story, as they all served well enough their purpose and the show runners do not need to follow word for word, but it just kind of felt like that one piece of information would help round things out as to why Geralt rushed back and why the henchmen were waiting for him.

Minor nitpick, though still we'll see how things go - the issue of time. In the books, the invasion of Cintra happens well after the Blaviken story, and Geralt already knows Ciri by the time of it. The show is its own thing though so I will withhold judgement on this part though until I see where the remaining episodes go.


What I liked:
Spoiler:

The casting looks good so far, everyone played their part well.

I did enjoy the fight choreography.

Besides my above nitpicks, it is overall well written, and I can see why the show runners did things the way they did. I can live with changes to the story so long as it is for the neutral or the better (like I am fine with Geralt not already knowing Stregobor, or not being friends with the Alderman of Blaviken, the story worked out the same regardless).


I guess side note, I only played a few hours of the first Witcher game, but am very much a book fan.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 01:37:16


Post by: LordofHats




For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 04:18:54


Post by: djones520


 LordofHats wrote:


For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*


They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them. Like at the feast in Cintra, they referred to the queen's battle as having happened decades before, but shortly after in a Geralt scene, they mentioned that the battle had just taken place.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 04:22:36


Post by: trexmeyer


BrianDavion wrote:
 trexmeyer wrote:
I haven't played the games more than 2-3 hours and never read the books. Finishing up the series now. It's fine. The CGI is spotty, the writing/acting is meh at times (especially episode 6), and some of the costuming is bad. Very tired of those awful crowns.

Spoiler:
I think my biggest actual complaint would be that the battle tactics in episode 8 are absolutely beyond stupid and the idea of just sacrificing mages for minimal value makes no sense to me.


Spoiler:
Are you refering the the nifgardian tacics of sacrificing mages to shoot fireballs? I saw that as an important scene to develop the CHARACTER of the Nilfgardians. Your life, to Niflgard, is worthless except by how you can serve the state. they will happily use you all up for any advantage.




I absolutely understand the intent, but still consider it idiotic tactics.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 04:23:38


Post by: BrianDavion


 djones520 wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:


For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*


They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them. Like at the feast in Cintra, they referred to the queen's battle as having happened decades before, but shortly after in a Geralt scene, they mentioned that the battle had just taken place.


actually at the feast they said her FIRST battle had happened when she was "ciri's age" not that battle she was at in the feast.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 04:41:58


Post by: djones520


BrianDavion wrote:
 djones520 wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:


For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*


They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them. Like at the feast in Cintra, they referred to the queen's battle as having happened decades before, but shortly after in a Geralt scene, they mentioned that the battle had just taken place.


actually at the feast they said her FIRST battle had happened when she was "ciri's age" not that battle she was at in the feast.


Yes, that battle, was then referred to in a later scene as just happening, thereby showing that there was a difference in the time of the scenes we were viewing.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 04:46:22


Post by: LordofHats


 djones520 wrote:
They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them.


I'm not even going to nitpick being too subtle about something as critical as what and when.

If we're going to get down to it, why is the story told this way at all? We see Ciri in the first episode and her story promptly becomes "just reminding you Ciri exists back to Geralt now" for basically the entire season while we play narrative catch up and I don't see the point. If Ciri did anything but "still on the run" and was trying to find Geralt or something and picked up stories about his life on the way I'd get it. That would make sense. But no. It's literally just occasional reminders her character exists and is running while absolutely nothing of note happens until near the end of the season.

It's not creative. It doesn't improve anything. It's confusing at its worse and a negligible ploy at it's best. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread the books don't tell things chronologically, but I can't fathom they bungled the mechanics of keeping the audience grounded this badly and for no real reason.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 05:54:00


Post by: Snrub


For those who know the books, how faithful has the series been to the books so far? Any glaring/unnecessary changes? And how much has the series covered so far (ie # of books)?




The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 06:49:43


Post by: BrianDavion


 Snrub wrote:
For those who know the books, how faithful has the series been to the books so far? Any glaring/unnecessary changes? And how much has the series covered so far (ie # of books)?




reasonably faithful but there are definate changes. most of the changes are pretty understandable though. Proably the most glaring change is Ciri in Broklion though. the tale in the books is VERY VERY differant


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 15:19:18


Post by: nels1031


Just finished the series.

Not flawless by any stretch, CGI was at times terrible (Dragon, mostly) and sometimes the dialogue was goofy (for example, when Porcupine Man says with utter conviction : “I’ve sworn to keep my helmet on! I’ve taken a Knights Vow!” A dude promptly walks up and takes it off him. This is not the way.) but was an overall a very fun ride.

Added bonus: I can cross “Watch a woman with severe hunchback and other deformities have sex with a dude while a bunch of old people watch” off my bucket list. Thanks Netflix! Thought that one was going to be costlier than my planned trip to Mongolia.



The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 20:01:57


Post by: AegisGrimm


I watched most of the first and second episodes last night, and I have to say that much of the time it felt kind of like a series for people who already know what's going on.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/22 22:49:02


Post by: LordofHats


I think the first half of the season is a complete drag. Once you get to the end though most of the wonkiness is gone and hopefully the next season will be more straight forward.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 01:13:32


Post by: Baragash


 LordofHats wrote:


For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.


^This. As someone that hasn't had any contact with the IP before this series I didn't notice it to start with then all of a sudden there's a scene (I forget which) that made me go "oh ok, this isn't linear" whilst my brain tried to work out where the previous 2-3 hours of the show all really sit on the timeline.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 02:14:10


Post by: AegisGrimm


Hell, I watched the first two episodes last night, and only on this page of this thread did I find out that the season isn't linear. I thought all the story lines were simultaneous, so at least now I can continue the series forewarned.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 02:48:03


Post by: LordofHats


 Baragash wrote:
 LordofHats wrote:


For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.


^This. As someone that hasn't had any contact with the IP before this series I didn't notice it to start with then all of a sudden there's a scene (I forget which) that made me go "oh ok, this isn't linear" whilst my brain tried to work out where the previous 2-3 hours of the show all really sit on the timeline.


It's episode four. Right when Calanthe shows up alive and well. That's when you go "wait wtf?" and then you quickly realize the series has been time jumping and offering the most easily missed of cues as the only indication it's been doing so.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 03:42:23


Post by: H.B.M.C.


I thought that was great. Henry Cavil just nails Geralt's voice from the games. Adds such a layer of authenticity to it all. Yennifer was an interesting character - queen bitch of the universe - and reminded me exactly of why I stuck with Triss in the games. Ciri was fine, the only issue being that her plotline was basically "Don't find Geralt right until the end", so she did a lot of running around without going anywhere. Dandelion was incredible!

Liked the takes on all the various short stories. The human vs human fights were appropriately brutal and fun to watch. Honestly not a lot of monster-killing, which surprised me.

I also liked the non-linear storytelling aspect of it. I read part of Gamespot's review where the reviewer spends a while going on about how awful the show is because it switches to different points in time without warning and never explains anything. Made me worried that the show would be impossible to follow. It was't. It was easy to follow once you got a few episodes in and figured out what they were doing.

Either way, really looking forward to season 2, although I do fear that eventually they will run out of story and won't move onto the plotlines from the games as the dude who invented The Witcher has a real problem with the games.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Hell, I watched the first two episodes last night, and only on this page of this thread did I find out that the season isn't linear. I thought all the story lines were simultaneous, so at least now I can continue the series forewarned.
Pretty sure you would have figured it out on your own. We revisit characters who die in earlier episodes pretty frequently.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 04:50:53


Post by: BrianDavion


Triss is the games is a loooot less nice when you realize that for the first 2 games it was basicly "ohh your memories gone? TIME TO STEAL YOU FROM MY FRIEND!"


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 12:06:12


Post by: AllSeeingSkink


I've got my eyes closed in this thread to try and avoid spoilers, I'm only up to episode 3 and you guys are awful

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?

I've always wanted to read the books, but want to read them before I see them on TV, I don't want to ruin the whole book series by watching this season, lol. I don't like reading a book when I know all the major plot points beforehand (much more bearable to watch a TV series when knowing the ending).

Obviously I know the ending to the books because that's where the games invent their story from, just don't want to ruin all the bits in between for myself.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 12:49:17


Post by: Sterling191


AllSeeingSkink wrote:

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?


My understanding is that they cover most of the short stories that serve as the "prequel" to the main novels, with only limited coverage of the books themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Either way, really looking forward to season 2, although I do fear that eventually they will run out of story and won't move onto the plotlines from the games as the dude who invented The Witcher has a real problem with the games.


I think that has more to do with his first agreement with CDPR being less than stellar. They just announced a new agreement to continue the license for CDPR, alongside a tidbit that makes me think Sapkowski got a muuuuuuuch better deal this time around, with a non-zero chance of some historical acknowledgement for how well the franchise has done.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 15:43:21


Post by: Yodhrin


Sterling191 wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?


My understanding is that they cover most of the short stories that serve as the "prequel" to the main novels, with only limited coverage of the books themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Either way, really looking forward to season 2, although I do fear that eventually they will run out of story and won't move onto the plotlines from the games as the dude who invented The Witcher has a real problem with the games.


I think that has more to do with his first agreement with CDPR being less than stellar. They just announced a new agreement to continue the license for CDPR, alongside a tidbit that makes me think Sapkowski got a muuuuuuuch better deal this time around, with a non-zero chance of some historical acknowledgement for how well the franchise has done.


The bolded would be a shame if true. The reason his previous deal was "less than stellar" was his own disdain for games as a medium, he thought he was taking CDPR for a ride and the games would go nowhere, and when they became a huge financial and critical success while the vast majority of the world didn't have a clue who he was, he acted like a bitter, juvenile wee gak for years. If he wants to demand more now to renew the license, fine, but he shouldn't be rewarded for his own snobbery and bile last time around.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 15:52:27


Post by: Lance845


AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I've got my eyes closed in this thread to try and avoid spoilers, I'm only up to episode 3 and you guys are awful

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?

I've always wanted to read the books, but want to read them before I see them on TV, I don't want to ruin the whole book series by watching this season, lol. I don't like reading a book when I know all the major plot points beforehand (much more bearable to watch a TV series when knowing the ending).

Obviously I know the ending to the books because that's where the games invent their story from, just don't want to ruin all the bits in between for myself.


Be warned. The books are English translations from Polish. They are not bad but they read like their native language. The Last Wish is the "first book" and is a collection of short stories with a framing device story set around them.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 16:36:25


Post by: His Master's Voice


For someone who did not read the source material, I think the series could be a solid C. A little rough around the edges, but otherwise decent filler entertainment you watch, enjoy and forget.

As someone who did, in fact, read and enjoy the source material... Damn, that hurt. Badly.

I did not expect much of what made Sapkowski's prose worth reading to make the transition, but when the showrunners take the narrative skeleton of a story, rip it out and use the twitching, bloody remains as a basis for an episode, it almost becomes too much to bear.

I think I watched the entire thing the way one might watch a horrible car accident. I just could not turn away from the horror of it all.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 19:51:47


Post by: SnotlingPimpWagon


Just finished the whole season. It’s better, than I expected. But I expected it to be utter gak.
I’ve read the books, then played the games, so there is that - it was most likely easier for me to follow the plot. Understanding, that the show is always a simplification of the book, because otherwise there is too much to fit in, i can see why it’s necessary to let some things go. The story unrolled in an ok manner for the most part.
For me it was getting better and better, episode 7 got meh and in the end, episode 8 had very few redeeming qualities.
Biggest pros: Geralt, Dandelion, the head sorceress (can’t remember her name, soz), Ciri was pretty good, sword fights, sprinkled in humor, and they didn’t turn it into a PG series.
I enjoyed it in general.
Oof, but it is Netflix.. so we get a mostly generic fantasy instead of “Witcher”. And battles suck (two swarms of people swinging weapons at each other while the camera keeps jumping every 1,5 seconds). We get miscasts of most female roles, of some elves, dwarves, dryads, which is pretty annoying, considering it’s based on a story, which is set in a harsh Slavic folklore. Somehow HBO managed without filling a quota on every race for the 7 kingdoms (we don’t see black white walkers, for example). And I could argue which source material is more gritty/detailed. I believe the author has described his characters in a precise manner for a reason, and it is an important part of the overall creation. Otherwise what is the point of describing at all.
What it leads to is that the atmosphere of Witcher is not there, for the most part, which is a shame.
Sometimes, especially it was prominent in the last episode, we get logic loopholes. It also becomes difficult to track who is where and how they got there, why that happens to X and why Y decided to do that. And I’ve read the books twice.
It doesn’t help, that we get generic “LETS DO THIS!”, generic. angry/determined/sad faces which is a an odd add to the mix of somewhat decent acting of other participants of the series.
With how stories were rearranged from the books, some of the drama is not there, which could help the audience really feel something.
Costumes and cgi on a budget were already discussed to bits, but I find it to be lesser offenders.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 20:42:07


Post by: Argive


my GF struggled to keep up with the change in plot lines/time and it seems to have been made a lot harder to follow and awkeward than it needs to be for reasons..

I got it but it wore thin very quick. I get sort of why they did it but dont think they achieved any more than just flowing chronologicaly.

That being said it personally didint bother me all that much.
What did bother me is the annoying garbage tier attempt at novel comic relief in the form of yaskir. His poor writing and pointless babbling was very immersion breaking.

It seems all ther CG budget went into the monster at the begining of the series for trailers reasons I gueess?

As someone who has neither played the games or read the books as a stand alone product Id give it a solid 7/10 overall.

And I am eyeing up the games. Might get a box set on steam.
Or at leats the first 2 and get the 3rd one for PS4.


The Witcher TV Series on Netflix  @ 2019/12/23 21:58:46


Post by: SnotlingPimpWagon


 Argive wrote:
my GF struggled to keep up with the change in plot lines/time and it seems to have been made a lot harder to follow and awkeward than it needs to be for reasons..

I got it but it wore thin very quick. I get sort of why they did it but dont think they achieved any more than just flowing chronologicaly.

That being said it personally didint bother me all that much.
What did bother me is the annoying garbage tier attempt at novel comic relief in the form of yaskir. His poor writing and pointless babbling was very immersion breaking.

It seems all ther CG budget went into the monster at the begining of the series for trailers reasons I gueess?

As someone who has neither played the games or read the books as a stand alone product Id give it a solid 7/10 overall.

And I am eyeing up the games. Might get a box set on steam.
Or at leats the first 2 and get the 3rd one for PS4.


I would recommend jumping into the 3rd one straight away. The games got better with each new release. and don’t forget to get Blood and Wine, and more importantly, Hearts of stone - probably the best part of all games, imho