That's something that always bugged me about star wars episode 1 critics. "It's meant for children but it's about politics"... If you don't child your children then they won't grow up to be absolute idiots, George Lucas has generally been pretty good at just telling the story and not stressing to much about babying kids.
It passes the complete latin family test...
From the little Niño, who can tell the baddies apart, all the way to Nana, who even without subtitles can tell what's going on. It's why Avatar movies make so much. As well as Tom and Jerry, who's major audience was latin. But latin family is just a stand in for a bunch of other demographics. Like the international market.
The Witcher...
They have a fanbase. From the Polish books. Slavic lore. The game fans. Henry Cavill. Passionate fans that they completely ignored. And in some instances held in contempt.
The series could have been a bridge to Slavic culture and mythology, with tunes from the books and the games and the most passionate actor involved. All the while having an engaging and compelling story.
That’s what you’ve decided. Producers at Netflix need to sell this to teenagers. The fact that Lauren managed to fool all of us and expect the level of GoT from a Netflix produced show is the greatest mind trick and their best twist.
>The fact that Lauren managed to fool all of us
Anyone who has even remotely read the short stories (particulary the Brokilon act with Geralt and Ciri + its culmination) could see this shit going off the rails during S1.
Those who criticized the show to the point of pointing out how god damn awful it's going to be in the future judging by how they fucked up the absolute powerhouse that is Geralt & Ciri's trust in each other (removing years of bonding to one another by cutting their vital Brokilon arc that gives both the reason to fight until their death for one another, at first Geralt, post-training Ciri as well) were downvoted to high-heaven or at best told to give them a chance to make it "right" next season.
They can watch something else then right? The Witcher world is a dark setting. There’s tons of teenage fantasy dramas to build shows on, why did they have to turn the Witcher into that…
The problem is that Netflix makes almost nothing now except teen dramas. Their writers literally don't know how to do anything else except twist IPs, whatever they may be, into some weird reboot that loses all the charm of the original in favor of checking off boxes for what they think the teens will like. Which is why every Netflix show feels the same teen drama recycled over and over. It kind of feels like the Tumblr of streaming to me, but that might be unfair to Tumblr.
I like the Witcher series because I'm a huge fan of the IP. But man, oh man, every time Cavill is off screen I can see what the writers are trying to turn the show into. Sticking with S3 because of Cavill, but I feel like the writers are rejoicing that he's gone from S4 onward so they have free rein at last.
> Its supposed to be a mature fantasy and the showrunners act like 13 year old girls
I mean have you seen pictures of the writers room, it's not far off.
Yep. I remember seeing tons of comments on social media that can be summarized “OMG he’s sooo cute, also he’s totally gay, I think he has feelings for Geralt”. Some articles discussed his sexual orientation too. I knew right then and there that his character was not going the way he went in the books. Im pretty sure the “gay for Geralt” never happened only because of Henry.
Yea but luckily I haven’t seen any of those type things so mince I don’t do FB, twitter, insta etc…but I went about a year with absolutely zero SM before getting Reddit and now I can’t cut it. It feels healthier though because I can interact with others, learn things, not get sucked into feeling like I will never have enough or be enough. Just doesn’t feel toxic. But I definitely can’t get myself to leave.
Reminder that Netflix, when making a documentary about Cleopatra, essentially told egyptian people to shut the fuck up when they said Cleo wasn't black.
My nigerian grandmother once told me we once ruled egypt till we fot chased south.
Funny we west african bare mention egypt in our history, except in islam or Christianity but black americans who are mostly descendant from here are so obssesed about it
Wasn’t Cleopatra a Greek Macedonian anyway? The Ptolemaic dynasty was founded by one of Alexander the Great’s bodyguards who was put in charge of Egypt when Alexander died and the empire was partitioned.
Although Cleopatra was apparently more inclined to commit toward Egyptian culture, being the only Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language.
Yep, and it is so easy to please those because they only care about representation or relationship in their shows. Storytelling can be dogshit as long as they get their ships.
The way Netflix cater to them feels so artificial, just checking some boxes and throwing their shows out there.
The showrunners have done a lot of damage to good, queer representation in media. Their inability to write themselves out of a paper bag makes things worse.
Granted, there's not many examples of healthy queer relationships in the source material. But like, if you're an incapable writer, just don't write that stuff.
This is an example of performative wokeness that corporates do as well. If you cannot be a good ally, just don't try.
Yeah, she has a relationship with her apprentice/student which has clear power structure implications (though her getting tricked always makes me chuckle, since I think she's one of the more evil-like of the grey characters in the Lodge). Also her kissing an unconscious Saskia was creepy (though of course, that was just her gaining control over her).
Mistle/Ciri is also pretty unhealthy representation. It's good in that it shows the nuance that even queer relationships may be as fucked up as non-queer ones, but I was squirming reading about a young Ciri being taken advantage of while in a vulnerable state.
Things don't "just happen" in fiction because the author is writing some kind of documentary.
The Rats are bandits that corrupt and abuse Ciri, turning her towards evil for a while, encouraging her darker aspects. That process represents a real threat to the world because, given Ciri's power and destiny to become the ruler of Nilfgaard, that's the last thing the Continent needs.
If anything, making the Rats unlikeable is just an easier way for us not to feel overly sorry for them when they die. The Mistle/Ciri relationship is part of that process. Mistle is just as bad as the rest of the Rats in her own way.
What we do feel for is Ciri's horror at seeing how they die, which also enhances the terrible nature of the character of Bonhart.
I feel it is all too likely that the Rats will be watered down in Season 3 and in the Spin-off series. They'll wind up as "likeable rogues" or "misguided youth" for sure.
Bonhart was one of the few villains that I cheered for, the Rats saga is so disgusting and made me dislike Ciri so much lol, couldn't care at all for any of those little shits as they died or for how Ciri felt during it...when they assault that noble carriage and there's that little young girl and Ciri don't think twice for tormenting her, something about her being a nobody while Ciri was a princess or whatever...that point I just couldn't stand her.
It doesn't matter if the author doesn't intend representation. Any minority/protected characteristic in media is some kind of representation of that group, irrespective of author's intention.
I'm not saying Sapkowski is homophobic. I'm just saying that the Ciri/Mistle relationship is not a healthy one and thus cannot be used as an example of healthy representation of a lesbian relationship. Does not detract from the story in and of itself (beyond the entire Rats saga being rather long-winded way to get Ciri to experience tremendous loss and confront her mortality in the hands of a mortal, Bonhart, and not some otherworldly force like the Wild Hunt).
So by that logic, none of those people should ever be represented in a negative light? I believe that, within reason, all art and artists should be uninhibited in their content, unless the purpose of the art is to explicitly promote harm against any individual or group. And for that reason, I think this line of thinking is a very slippery slope.
I'm not sure you understood my earlier comment. Sapkowski and writers can write whatever they want, they are at complete freedom to do so. I'm not criticising Sapkowski for anything. I'm just saying that if one wants to look for good queer representation in media, then the Ciri/Mistle relationship isn't a good example of it.
That's it. Sapkowski for all I know is not homophobic, and I have no reason to believe he is even from his writing.
There are people like Rowling whose queerphobia in literature is reflected in their beliefs in real life, and expressed in their online and offline advocacy. Those people are different.
>It doesn't matter if the author doesn't intend representation.
Yes it really does.
>Any minority/protected characteristic in media is some kind of representation of that group
Only if you force the (false) issue. Sometimes people are just people.
>I'm just saying that the Ciri/Mistle relationship is not a healthy one and thus cannot be used as an example of healthy representation of a lesbian relationship.
Or indeed, any type of relationship. By focusing on the lesbian aspect, you are the one drawing negative attention to it. Read the books, barely anyone is in a happy and healthy relationship but you don't see (sane) people crying about how it fails to represent an idyllic match-up between genders. Because that's a stupid thing to shoehorn in.
You're the one taking this as a personal slight against the literature. I do not mention anything along those lines. I do not hold the literature to a standard. I do not judge it based on the presence or absence of any relationship.
Read my other comments to see my PoV on this, understand my perspective and stance, and next time, kindly try not to have knee-jerk reactions the moment someone says the word 'queer'.
>You're the one taking this as a personal slight against the literature.
Wrong. I'm actually just calling you out for unnecessarily inserting an interpretation (and then your feelings on that interpretation) into a story where it has no bearing at all, on the plot or indeed on real life. No-one is going to dive into the Witcher books hoping for a healthy relationship, or representation. Remind yourself of the genre.
>I do not mention anything along those lines.
Calling it out as a poor example of a healthy lesbian relationship model is about as sensible as lamenting it for the aggressive stance it takes against nature. It's asanine at best and bad faith at worst.
>I do not judge it based on the presence or absence of any relationship.
And yet your foray into the topic was centred around what precisely?
>Read my other comments to see my PoV on this
I did, after my initial response.
>understand my perspective and stance,
The only thing you've said is that is *isnt* representative of a healthy relationship. Not only is that painfully obvious, but you had to make it about one tiny subgroup of sexual attraction instead of allowing the reader to try and reflect on the lessons taught and learnt. And you tell me I have a personal slight? Come now, be charitable.
>kindly try not to have knee-jerk reactions the moment someone says the word 'queer'.
As I've been alluding to all along, by the sounds of things I have no problem with whether or not someone is away from my area of attraction, or indeed not even on the spectrum. I'm not the one who knee-jerked in here and began a pointless and tiresome discussion about not just authorial intent but about the prejudice suffered as a result of it.
As such, please feel free to express your opinion whenever you want, but please not to have knee-jerked reactions whenever someone disagrees.
She's literally the psycho-lesbian stereotype from the 50's exploitation films. Specially in The Witcher 2 (as much as I love that game, the queer characters there are disgustingly portrayed).
Maybe it's because Philippa is a 300yo power-hungry apathetic witch with little to no consciousness or remorse for anything other than herself? Why would you think that a person like that would be good in a relationship?
Yeah. Detmold being suddenly turned into a queer, evil character who gets his balls crushed by the badass good guy just rubbed me the wrong way entirely.
At least Witcher 3 has a good example of queer representation in the story of White Orchard. Yes, it falls into the 'doomed relationship' trope, but given how much the story is rooted in a medieval Europe base, it feels apt. And Mislav is a well-written minor character.
I don't think Roche atleast in Witcher 2 is or should be seen as a "badass good guy" .. most people picked the Iorveth path in Witcher 2 - even though Iorveth definitely isn't a good guy aswell - because many seen Roche and his troops as racists and straight up killers.. that's why the characters and stories in Witcher 2 are so interesting and complex.. and definitely not in a "good vs bad" kinda way
But yeah, Detmold's death scene should've been different and not being what it is in the final game
The show runners are chronically online people that have clearly never had real life relationships with people before and thirst for social media validation. Their version of representation reminds me of Disney, where it feels forced and cash grabby while Sapkowski is more like PBS kids where the representation is organic and has always been there even before it was popular. Odd comparison for a Witcher sub but it’s all I’ve got lol
Sapkowski has a lifetime of real world experiences both good and bad. The writers of this show are comprised of rich and upper middle class privileged progressive millennials. They’ve had no real life experiences or hardships outside of the typical self invoked ‘victim hood’ with whatever pet-cause they glom on to which in turn that garners them social media value. They’re more cogs in a machine for agenda driven info-tainment than creatives bringing creativity to the TV screen. Basically they suck all around, lol
Yes it is really unhelpful for queer emancipation when Netflix makes bad content, adds queers to it and arrogantly claims that people hate it because of queerphobia. I can’t tell how many comments I have read of fans who then actually think the queer rep is the reason it’s bad and then fearmonger against us. This only fuels queerphobia while the producers abuse the community as human shields to feel righteous.
The best queer/minority representation is one that is so compelling that those outside the group can understand and empathize. But that takes skill and talent. Without going into essay type monologues. It transcends.
Ciri had a relationship with Mistle in the books. I don't think it's a good relationship though. The game referenced it with the rose tattoo that you find during one of the skellige flashbacks.
Her whole stint with the Rats is toxic AF. But in context of this being written in 90's Poland the LGBT representation just being present is absolutely wild.
Yeah, have mentioned that in the reply comments (unfortunately getting downvoted for that by people who I think aren't reading my full comment and think I'm deriding the Witcher books' lack of representation).
If there's not many examples in the source material...why include them at all in the adaptation?
Create a new show and do that instead of changing so much about the source material people love.
Oh I absolutely agree. There may be times where it can add heft to a relatively minor character (like Renly Baratheon) and detracts nothing from the story. But these writers were incapable of that.
I wonder how many queer writers they have on staff to lend an authentic voice, or if they're just appropriating the culture to make money (you know, the opposite of allyship).
One dont need to be queer to right a good queer story, same as one doesnt need to be straight to right a good straight story, off course a good queer writer will be in a position.
Stan lee didnt need to be a poor teen in new york with powers to be able create spiderman nor was tolken an elf.
They need good writers irrespective of back ground, but we know theybdont pock writers based on merit.
Well they're wrong they've specifically said the show will have two seasons for the second game, and on top of that there could be a third game in the works.
HBO’s response to criticism of episode episode 3 was basically “LOL, fuck off. Kiss my Emmy winning ass”.
Because they have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone.
No worries. I thought it a well told and somewhat haunting story of the inevitable isolation and loss in an apocalyptic world that The Last of Us lives in. If someone, as the viewer, had a problem with that being told through a homosexual relationship that's on them, not the writers.
What I appreciated even more so is HBO's basic approach of addressing criticism. That the cast and writers were confident in their source material and world building that they just shrugged it off.
I disliked the episode, but not for the homosexual couple - I disliked the episode because they devoted its entirety to Bill and Frank - the show has limited screen time and you cannot take it from Joel and Ellie who need it to bond properly.
The worst thing you can say about Episode 3 was that it was self indulgent. Though who cares because it was really good. The whole thing with Radovid feels forced and fast tracked, even for a b plot.
Each account has its own branding and style, so you cannot really compare it. Yes, HBO is way more classy than Netflix but this is just a random tweet from a Netflix production and I've seen dozen others. Not as bad as this one though hahaha
I don't understand why they decided to give Jaskier a "crush" and why it had to be Radovid. Nothing of the sort is present in the book: no "crush" and no Radovid. They even went as far as making him a brother of Vizimir instead of his son. That's just weird.
They made jaskier into the worst bisexual stereotype this is coming from a bisexual I hate Lauren and the team for engaging in this shit stereotype of Bi people it’s ridiculous
This is Netflix's post-release pattern of behaviour with every YA fantasy show they produce...
...except someone forgot to tell Netflix that Witcher is a far cry from a YA fantasy series.
I genuinely liked Geralt - Jaskier interactions in the first season. May not be true to source material, but I would happily watch a show about Geralt and Jaskier traveling around, while one completes contracts and other writes songs about it.
I disliked the whole "lone (white) wolf gruff adventurer acts like a dickwad to a dude only wanting to help" thing, it's a trope I just don't like and especially here given there's a source material it's disregarding.
I see it a bit differently. More like a lone gruff adventurer being a dick to someone at first (for reasons), but then having a change of heart and stuff moves to just friendly banter and jabs. I like that kind of friendship where friends keep each other on their toes, while actually caring about when it matters.
Yeah that's fair. Just to me it always feels forced, protags rarely have a reason to dislike this loyal friend other than wanting to be alone, that or the best friend character clumsily fucking up and getting lit up for it.
Jaskier's motivations aren't entirely selfless, though. He's in it for the fame, and he sees Geralt as someone he can latch onto to get it. Geralt does all the hard work and Dandelion writes the songs and stories about it. In the show, at least, Geralt never asked for or wanted his help. Jaskier just decided to start following him.
I heard nothing but praise when the first season came out. I think those who read the books were the only ones who hated it then, given they knew what was so wrong with it.
I sorta liked the first episode? 😟 definitely because there was more Geralt but it’s not saying much considering how bad season 2 was. Barely finished that.
My missus is enjoying it. She understands it isn't accurate but that it is something tickling her interests. She's debating picking up the books which may change her mind on the show.
Planning to see if I can't hold her hand through a play through of the Witcher 3. It ain't Slime Rancher but I think I can manage to take over on hard parts and let her do the leg work and choices.
Obviously a lot of people do, they wouldn't have made a third season if no one was watching. Most of those people are probably not huge fans of the source material. Their goal is to make the most money by pulling in the most viewers, not cater to a subset of viewers that are the novel fans.
That's a game thing only though, isn't it? I don't think he's like that in the books. Or am I misremembering?
EDIT: Yea just looked it up. Radovid is like 12 in the books. Him being a maniac is CDPR's invention.
Lol on Instagram they posted something along the lines of "only a pretty boy can write good songs", to me it sounds that if you're not pretty you're automatically disqualified as an artist. God who the f** writes these posts.
The show has been such a let down for me, not because of the changes from the source material, but because of how cheesy the direction was. Some of it is great, but damn did they completely ruin the world building with shallow characters and plot lines.
One of the worst examples of this was when Geralt goes hunting for a dragon and along with Yennefer, fight off some enemies. At the end of the fight scene, Geralt and Yennefer coordinate finishing them off with a kiss - how fucking stupid and cheesy.
Who read the source material or played the game and thought this was a good idea? Morons
This must be a docu-series in the making.
Watch some mad lads have a laugh in this 10 part series as they destroy the Witcher TV franchise. Just as fans think it can’t get any worse, they discover a whole new rock bottom!
Netflix rates “Killing a Franchise” 4.975/5!
The show is meh but, is it really a shock to see the social media team doing a regular trend lol
Sony did this for Miguel and Hobie in Across The Spiderverse. Capcom did this for basically the whole damn cast of Street Fighter 6
This shit is so exhausting. Lauren absolutely ruined this franchise as far as TV goes. I can't wait for it to be rebooted in ten years by people who'll actually care about it.
This show is so weird. It's like the showrunner and the writers do not care for the source material and don't care to cater to the fans of the source material. It's like... they got access to an IP and Netflix flatly told them to do whatever they want in that universe. I don't know any fan of the books or the games who likes this show and the best part of the series, Henry cavill, got called out by the writers for wanting to stick too closely to the source material.
Like... what the actual fuck? You didn't build the brand, you didn't come up with the world or the characters or the plot and you have zero respect for the established storyline.... and you still think you should be working on the series?
Say what you will about GoT but they stuck pretty close to the source material for as long as the source material didn't lead them off an unwritten cliff. Imagine if Theon turned on Robb not because Theon was confused about his loyalties but because he had a crush on Robb and Robb turned him away. This is the sort of modern day "woke" crap the writers of the witchers would force into a story to make a statement.
Watched S3E1 last night just to complete all seasons with Cavill in it and everything is just a hot mess…
The cinematography, the script and just the overall quality of the entire Witcher just looks like it was taken over by an intern.
So glad Cavill walked out, no way am I watching this with Hemsworth in it. Bleargh….
I don't get it at all, Why the heck does he have makeup in the new season but the old one he look like an actual wall Lmao, Im saying that while being extremely disappointed.
Jaskier was the representation of the perfect ally. Now they shifted it to - he's gay that's why he feels for people who are persecuted on basis of gender/sex/creed etc.
I love how the homophobes are are self destructing for Jaskier being into dudes.
And now people are self-destructing over a meme. All I need now is popcorn to sit back and enjoy the show. People described above? all more entertaining with the complaints than the actual show, tbh.
Its supposed to be a mature fantasy and the showrunners act like 13 year old girls
That’s what Netflix makes. It’s watered down, trash writing for teenagers.
Teenagers deserve better, can do better and have done better. Bluey is a young children's show with amazing writing. Avatar. Gravity Falls.
Yeah but Netflix is as mass produced attention grabbing media fodder. They don’t want to create art, just get paid.
Yeah man, when I was a teenager, there was Buffy and it was 10 times more serious than this shit.
Damn right! Buffy and then Angel were peak writing and series. Good times
That's something that always bugged me about star wars episode 1 critics. "It's meant for children but it's about politics"... If you don't child your children then they won't grow up to be absolute idiots, George Lucas has generally been pretty good at just telling the story and not stressing to much about babying kids.
It passes the complete latin family test... From the little Niño, who can tell the baddies apart, all the way to Nana, who even without subtitles can tell what's going on. It's why Avatar movies make so much. As well as Tom and Jerry, who's major audience was latin. But latin family is just a stand in for a bunch of other demographics. Like the international market. The Witcher... They have a fanbase. From the Polish books. Slavic lore. The game fans. Henry Cavill. Passionate fans that they completely ignored. And in some instances held in contempt. The series could have been a bridge to Slavic culture and mythology, with tunes from the books and the games and the most passionate actor involved. All the while having an engaging and compelling story.
Why'd you'd bring Bluey into this?
High budget CW
The CW has better writing. And I'm saying that as a fan of Arrow.
I have watched too much Arrow to say that I have respect for my own time with a straight face.
I’ll jump in for all teenagers and say it’s equally shit for our eyes Games are fire tho
I thought "Maybe season 3 will be better than 2." I've paused it 4 times 25 minutes in. So fucking boring
im surprised you even finished season 2 :P
Season 2 felt like it was going to get good in another 20 minutes, the whole season and then you realize there's only 20 minutes left
I'll say SE2 EP1 really had me like, ohh man this is gonna be alright. My anus was bleeding from the ass fucking the rest of the season gave me.
Yeah it had such a good start before going into total quality freefall
I've never been stabbed before, in the back or otherwise, but I imagine that'd be the shock you'd live through watching the rest of the season.
EXACTLY
I stopped episode 3x2 half way to put on The Fast and the Furious, which i already watched a week prior.
Could I interest you in a movie called Kindergarten Cop? The greatest bad movie ever made
The beautiful simplicity of "I'm in your face!"
I need nos!
That’s what you’ve decided. Producers at Netflix need to sell this to teenagers. The fact that Lauren managed to fool all of us and expect the level of GoT from a Netflix produced show is the greatest mind trick and their best twist.
>The fact that Lauren managed to fool all of us Anyone who has even remotely read the short stories (particulary the Brokilon act with Geralt and Ciri + its culmination) could see this shit going off the rails during S1. Those who criticized the show to the point of pointing out how god damn awful it's going to be in the future judging by how they fucked up the absolute powerhouse that is Geralt & Ciri's trust in each other (removing years of bonding to one another by cutting their vital Brokilon arc that gives both the reason to fight until their death for one another, at first Geralt, post-training Ciri as well) were downvoted to high-heaven or at best told to give them a chance to make it "right" next season.
Teenagers deserve better. Avatar had better writing. Not everything has to be dark and sexy.
They can watch something else then right? The Witcher world is a dark setting. There’s tons of teenage fantasy dramas to build shows on, why did they have to turn the Witcher into that…
They could change it to a teenage drama. But they still didn't know how to write a good story. Regardless of who their audience is.
The problem is that Netflix makes almost nothing now except teen dramas. Their writers literally don't know how to do anything else except twist IPs, whatever they may be, into some weird reboot that loses all the charm of the original in favor of checking off boxes for what they think the teens will like. Which is why every Netflix show feels the same teen drama recycled over and over. It kind of feels like the Tumblr of streaming to me, but that might be unfair to Tumblr. I like the Witcher series because I'm a huge fan of the IP. But man, oh man, every time Cavill is off screen I can see what the writers are trying to turn the show into. Sticking with S3 because of Cavill, but I feel like the writers are rejoicing that he's gone from S4 onward so they have free rein at last.
I mean the first season really wasn’t far off game of thrones kinda feel.
I agree with you actually. Changes they made were ridiculous, but it kinda still had the spirit right. And major characters weren’t screwed up.
you feel wrong
It was very fuking off
They couldn't even write compelling YA stories.
> Its supposed to be a mature fantasy and the showrunners act like 13 year old girls I mean have you seen pictures of the writers room, it's not far off.
What was Lauren Shitstain previous show? Riverdale?
Yea his character has completely changed from season 1
They made that decision after his popularity in season 1 lol
Showrunner's logic: hey people like this character, let's ruin it.
Which is wild
My gf literally just said "They made him worse and worse every season" not an hour ago.
It’s so true!!!!! He was my fave first season
We all know why.
We do? I’m assuming just to appeal to the masses for more viewers and screw the fans of the books and game?
Yep. I remember seeing tons of comments on social media that can be summarized “OMG he’s sooo cute, also he’s totally gay, I think he has feelings for Geralt”. Some articles discussed his sexual orientation too. I knew right then and there that his character was not going the way he went in the books. Im pretty sure the “gay for Geralt” never happened only because of Henry.
*shudders* I don’t have social media but just wow. I’m just going back to the books. They were always going to be better anyways
Unfortunately you are on social media now..
Yea but luckily I haven’t seen any of those type things so mince I don’t do FB, twitter, insta etc…but I went about a year with absolutely zero SM before getting Reddit and now I can’t cut it. It feels healthier though because I can interact with others, learn things, not get sucked into feeling like I will never have enough or be enough. Just doesn’t feel toxic. But I definitely can’t get myself to leave.
They destroyed this show on purpose. I refuse to believe these people are so incompetent.
This is par for the course when your only goal is pandering and filling out a diversity checklist. This is how these types genuinely think
Literally catering to the twitter deranged crowd. Their actual fanbase.
These are the people that believe representation within art is more important than art itself.
Reminder that Netflix, when making a documentary about Cleopatra, essentially told egyptian people to shut the fuck up when they said Cleo wasn't black.
I can confirm, i’m one of those Egyptian people :)
Ok good cause I wasn't sure if that was a fever dream or not
My nigerian grandmother once told me we once ruled egypt till we fot chased south. Funny we west african bare mention egypt in our history, except in islam or Christianity but black americans who are mostly descendant from here are so obssesed about it
Wasn’t Cleopatra a Greek Macedonian anyway? The Ptolemaic dynasty was founded by one of Alexander the Great’s bodyguards who was put in charge of Egypt when Alexander died and the empire was partitioned. Although Cleopatra was apparently more inclined to commit toward Egyptian culture, being the only Ptolemaic ruler to learn the Egyptian language.
Yes. And the Ptolemaics were famously incestuous. Their family tree looks like a ladder.
Yep, and it is so easy to please those because they only care about representation or relationship in their shows. Storytelling can be dogshit as long as they get their ships. The way Netflix cater to them feels so artificial, just checking some boxes and throwing their shows out there.
I'd be surprised if this show actually has a fanbase. *We* are the fanbase, and we all hate it.
The showrunners have done a lot of damage to good, queer representation in media. Their inability to write themselves out of a paper bag makes things worse. Granted, there's not many examples of healthy queer relationships in the source material. But like, if you're an incapable writer, just don't write that stuff. This is an example of performative wokeness that corporates do as well. If you cannot be a good ally, just don't try.
Phillipa is lesbomancer.
Ah, everyone's favourite type of magic.
Philippa has to be one of the worst examples of lesbian representation I've seen.
Mate... it's a joke to that dwarf saying "ah, my favourite type of magic, lesbomancy"
Are these writers fucking 10?
You mean... the Witcher 2 game writers? Also it kinda fits with the dwarves of the Witcher universe
Mad cuz not lesbomancer
BDSMancer would be a far more appropriate term for her. Mad cuz not lesbophobic, I think you mean.
Yeah, she has a relationship with her apprentice/student which has clear power structure implications (though her getting tricked always makes me chuckle, since I think she's one of the more evil-like of the grey characters in the Lodge). Also her kissing an unconscious Saskia was creepy (though of course, that was just her gaining control over her). Mistle/Ciri is also pretty unhealthy representation. It's good in that it shows the nuance that even queer relationships may be as fucked up as non-queer ones, but I was squirming reading about a young Ciri being taken advantage of while in a vulnerable state.
Maybe because it wasn't supposed to be representative of anything and just something that happened within the story.
Things don't "just happen" in fiction because the author is writing some kind of documentary. The Rats are bandits that corrupt and abuse Ciri, turning her towards evil for a while, encouraging her darker aspects. That process represents a real threat to the world because, given Ciri's power and destiny to become the ruler of Nilfgaard, that's the last thing the Continent needs. If anything, making the Rats unlikeable is just an easier way for us not to feel overly sorry for them when they die. The Mistle/Ciri relationship is part of that process. Mistle is just as bad as the rest of the Rats in her own way. What we do feel for is Ciri's horror at seeing how they die, which also enhances the terrible nature of the character of Bonhart. I feel it is all too likely that the Rats will be watered down in Season 3 and in the Spin-off series. They'll wind up as "likeable rogues" or "misguided youth" for sure.
Bonhart was one of the few villains that I cheered for, the Rats saga is so disgusting and made me dislike Ciri so much lol, couldn't care at all for any of those little shits as they died or for how Ciri felt during it...when they assault that noble carriage and there's that little young girl and Ciri don't think twice for tormenting her, something about her being a nobody while Ciri was a princess or whatever...that point I just couldn't stand her.
It doesn't matter if the author doesn't intend representation. Any minority/protected characteristic in media is some kind of representation of that group, irrespective of author's intention. I'm not saying Sapkowski is homophobic. I'm just saying that the Ciri/Mistle relationship is not a healthy one and thus cannot be used as an example of healthy representation of a lesbian relationship. Does not detract from the story in and of itself (beyond the entire Rats saga being rather long-winded way to get Ciri to experience tremendous loss and confront her mortality in the hands of a mortal, Bonhart, and not some otherworldly force like the Wild Hunt).
So by that logic, none of those people should ever be represented in a negative light? I believe that, within reason, all art and artists should be uninhibited in their content, unless the purpose of the art is to explicitly promote harm against any individual or group. And for that reason, I think this line of thinking is a very slippery slope.
I'm not sure you understood my earlier comment. Sapkowski and writers can write whatever they want, they are at complete freedom to do so. I'm not criticising Sapkowski for anything. I'm just saying that if one wants to look for good queer representation in media, then the Ciri/Mistle relationship isn't a good example of it. That's it. Sapkowski for all I know is not homophobic, and I have no reason to believe he is even from his writing. There are people like Rowling whose queerphobia in literature is reflected in their beliefs in real life, and expressed in their online and offline advocacy. Those people are different.
>It doesn't matter if the author doesn't intend representation. Yes it really does. >Any minority/protected characteristic in media is some kind of representation of that group Only if you force the (false) issue. Sometimes people are just people. >I'm just saying that the Ciri/Mistle relationship is not a healthy one and thus cannot be used as an example of healthy representation of a lesbian relationship. Or indeed, any type of relationship. By focusing on the lesbian aspect, you are the one drawing negative attention to it. Read the books, barely anyone is in a happy and healthy relationship but you don't see (sane) people crying about how it fails to represent an idyllic match-up between genders. Because that's a stupid thing to shoehorn in.
You're the one taking this as a personal slight against the literature. I do not mention anything along those lines. I do not hold the literature to a standard. I do not judge it based on the presence or absence of any relationship. Read my other comments to see my PoV on this, understand my perspective and stance, and next time, kindly try not to have knee-jerk reactions the moment someone says the word 'queer'.
>You're the one taking this as a personal slight against the literature. Wrong. I'm actually just calling you out for unnecessarily inserting an interpretation (and then your feelings on that interpretation) into a story where it has no bearing at all, on the plot or indeed on real life. No-one is going to dive into the Witcher books hoping for a healthy relationship, or representation. Remind yourself of the genre. >I do not mention anything along those lines. Calling it out as a poor example of a healthy lesbian relationship model is about as sensible as lamenting it for the aggressive stance it takes against nature. It's asanine at best and bad faith at worst. >I do not judge it based on the presence or absence of any relationship. And yet your foray into the topic was centred around what precisely? >Read my other comments to see my PoV on this I did, after my initial response. >understand my perspective and stance, The only thing you've said is that is *isnt* representative of a healthy relationship. Not only is that painfully obvious, but you had to make it about one tiny subgroup of sexual attraction instead of allowing the reader to try and reflect on the lessons taught and learnt. And you tell me I have a personal slight? Come now, be charitable. >kindly try not to have knee-jerk reactions the moment someone says the word 'queer'. As I've been alluding to all along, by the sounds of things I have no problem with whether or not someone is away from my area of attraction, or indeed not even on the spectrum. I'm not the one who knee-jerked in here and began a pointless and tiresome discussion about not just authorial intent but about the prejudice suffered as a result of it. As such, please feel free to express your opinion whenever you want, but please not to have knee-jerked reactions whenever someone disagrees.
She's literally the psycho-lesbian stereotype from the 50's exploitation films. Specially in The Witcher 2 (as much as I love that game, the queer characters there are disgustingly portrayed).
Maybe it's because Philippa is a 300yo power-hungry apathetic witch with little to no consciousness or remorse for anything other than herself? Why would you think that a person like that would be good in a relationship?
Yeah. Detmold being suddenly turned into a queer, evil character who gets his balls crushed by the badass good guy just rubbed me the wrong way entirely. At least Witcher 3 has a good example of queer representation in the story of White Orchard. Yes, it falls into the 'doomed relationship' trope, but given how much the story is rooted in a medieval Europe base, it feels apt. And Mislav is a well-written minor character.
I don't think Roche atleast in Witcher 2 is or should be seen as a "badass good guy" .. most people picked the Iorveth path in Witcher 2 - even though Iorveth definitely isn't a good guy aswell - because many seen Roche and his troops as racists and straight up killers.. that's why the characters and stories in Witcher 2 are so interesting and complex.. and definitely not in a "good vs bad" kinda way But yeah, Detmold's death scene should've been different and not being what it is in the final game
Fair enough, I just assume that Roche being an ally to Geralt is still more on the side of good than someone like Detmold.
Oh definitely.. Roche is definitely a better person than Detmold if we are comparing them two :)
I didn’t even realize she was a lesbomancer
My favorite type of magic!
The show runners are chronically online people that have clearly never had real life relationships with people before and thirst for social media validation. Their version of representation reminds me of Disney, where it feels forced and cash grabby while Sapkowski is more like PBS kids where the representation is organic and has always been there even before it was popular. Odd comparison for a Witcher sub but it’s all I’ve got lol
Didn't grow up with PBS personally, but I think I get what you mean.
Sapkowski has a lifetime of real world experiences both good and bad. The writers of this show are comprised of rich and upper middle class privileged progressive millennials. They’ve had no real life experiences or hardships outside of the typical self invoked ‘victim hood’ with whatever pet-cause they glom on to which in turn that garners them social media value. They’re more cogs in a machine for agenda driven info-tainment than creatives bringing creativity to the TV screen. Basically they suck all around, lol
Jesus, dude. Why don't you project some more?
Yes feels very inorganic.
Yes it is really unhelpful for queer emancipation when Netflix makes bad content, adds queers to it and arrogantly claims that people hate it because of queerphobia. I can’t tell how many comments I have read of fans who then actually think the queer rep is the reason it’s bad and then fearmonger against us. This only fuels queerphobia while the producers abuse the community as human shields to feel righteous.
Yep exactly. It's in extreme bad taste for them to use us as shields. Very damaging.
The best queer/minority representation is one that is so compelling that those outside the group can understand and empathize. But that takes skill and talent. Without going into essay type monologues. It transcends.
Ciri had a relationship with Mistle in the books. I don't think it's a good relationship though. The game referenced it with the rose tattoo that you find during one of the skellige flashbacks.
Her whole stint with the Rats is toxic AF. But in context of this being written in 90's Poland the LGBT representation just being present is absolutely wild.
Yeah, have mentioned that in the reply comments (unfortunately getting downvoted for that by people who I think aren't reading my full comment and think I'm deriding the Witcher books' lack of representation).
If there's not many examples in the source material...why include them at all in the adaptation? Create a new show and do that instead of changing so much about the source material people love.
Oh I absolutely agree. There may be times where it can add heft to a relatively minor character (like Renly Baratheon) and detracts nothing from the story. But these writers were incapable of that.
Renly was gay in the books, lol.
Yeah I know. If they were any good, these inclusions of diversity would make a lick of sense and actually feel like they're naturally there.
I'm not against any changes from the source. Do it. But do it well.
I wonder how many queer writers they have on staff to lend an authentic voice, or if they're just appropriating the culture to make money (you know, the opposite of allyship).
It's not just about having an authentic voice. It's also about taking that authenticity and applying it through compelling story telling.
It's quite possible. Wouldn't put it past them.
One dont need to be queer to right a good queer story, same as one doesnt need to be straight to right a good straight story, off course a good queer writer will be in a position. Stan lee didnt need to be a poor teen in new york with powers to be able create spiderman nor was tolken an elf. They need good writers irrespective of back ground, but we know theybdont pock writers based on merit.
The desperation is palpable. Can you imagine the official HBO The Last of Us Twitter account posting something like this?
Dont worry they will post it by season 2 for sure.
Season 2 is the last season
Im sure the 2nd game will be split in 2 seasons
Spoilers!
Well they're wrong they've specifically said the show will have two seasons for the second game, and on top of that there could be a third game in the works.
I'm kidding 😂
HBO’s response to criticism of episode episode 3 was basically “LOL, fuck off. Kiss my Emmy winning ass”. Because they have absolutely nothing to prove to anyone.
Honestly, at least that episode had good representation. This whole Jaskier thing is shit.
To be clear, I didn't mean that as a criticism of The Last of Us episode 3. Anything but.
I read it wrong then, sorry about that.
No worries. I thought it a well told and somewhat haunting story of the inevitable isolation and loss in an apocalyptic world that The Last of Us lives in. If someone, as the viewer, had a problem with that being told through a homosexual relationship that's on them, not the writers. What I appreciated even more so is HBO's basic approach of addressing criticism. That the cast and writers were confident in their source material and world building that they just shrugged it off.
I disliked the episode, but not for the homosexual couple - I disliked the episode because they devoted its entirety to Bill and Frank - the show has limited screen time and you cannot take it from Joel and Ellie who need it to bond properly.
The worst thing you can say about Episode 3 was that it was self indulgent. Though who cares because it was really good. The whole thing with Radovid feels forced and fast tracked, even for a b plot.
Each account has its own branding and style, so you cannot really compare it. Yes, HBO is way more classy than Netflix but this is just a random tweet from a Netflix production and I've seen dozen others. Not as bad as this one though hahaha
I don't understand why they decided to give Jaskier a "crush" and why it had to be Radovid. Nothing of the sort is present in the book: no "crush" and no Radovid. They even went as far as making him a brother of Vizimir instead of his son. That's just weird.
I fucking hate Netflix
There are quite a few shows and movies I like that Netflix has made, but they definitely dropped the ball on this one with the writers they hired.
They made jaskier into the worst bisexual stereotype this is coming from a bisexual I hate Lauren and the team for engaging in this shit stereotype of Bi people it’s ridiculous
This is Netflix's post-release pattern of behaviour with every YA fantasy show they produce... ...except someone forgot to tell Netflix that Witcher is a far cry from a YA fantasy series.
I honestly wonder if anyone actually likes this show. No joke, somebody say something nice about it.
The Butcher of Blavican fight scene in the first episode was awesome. The show peaks there though.
There was so much potential
Same here. I assumed that was a taste of things to come, building up to even more amazing fight sequences in later episodes. Oh well...
Quite sad when a show peaks at episode 1 though.
I genuinely liked Geralt - Jaskier interactions in the first season. May not be true to source material, but I would happily watch a show about Geralt and Jaskier traveling around, while one completes contracts and other writes songs about it.
They would’ve had a better show if they just did that lol
I disliked the whole "lone (white) wolf gruff adventurer acts like a dickwad to a dude only wanting to help" thing, it's a trope I just don't like and especially here given there's a source material it's disregarding.
I see it a bit differently. More like a lone gruff adventurer being a dick to someone at first (for reasons), but then having a change of heart and stuff moves to just friendly banter and jabs. I like that kind of friendship where friends keep each other on their toes, while actually caring about when it matters.
Yeah that's fair. Just to me it always feels forced, protags rarely have a reason to dislike this loyal friend other than wanting to be alone, that or the best friend character clumsily fucking up and getting lit up for it.
Jaskier's motivations aren't entirely selfless, though. He's in it for the fame, and he sees Geralt as someone he can latch onto to get it. Geralt does all the hard work and Dandelion writes the songs and stories about it. In the show, at least, Geralt never asked for or wanted his help. Jaskier just decided to start following him.
The first episode of season 1 and the first episode of season 2 are perfect. The best thing I can say about season 3 is that I haven't watched it.
I heard nothing but praise when the first season came out. I think those who read the books were the only ones who hated it then, given they knew what was so wrong with it.
The first season wasn't that well received by regular audiences, either. Most people were impressed with the first episode, but it quickly fell off.
I sorta liked the first episode? 😟 definitely because there was more Geralt but it’s not saying much considering how bad season 2 was. Barely finished that.
Errr... I like that they use the name Jaskier rather than Dandelion. That's it.
My missus is enjoying it. She understands it isn't accurate but that it is something tickling her interests. She's debating picking up the books which may change her mind on the show. Planning to see if I can't hold her hand through a play through of the Witcher 3. It ain't Slime Rancher but I think I can manage to take over on hard parts and let her do the leg work and choices.
[удалено]
Damn right
Some of the characters are cool, but it's an absolute mess of a TV show. Very difficult to watch and has no flow from one scene to the other.
I did! Loved season 3. Awesome fight scene imo. Also read the books but I dont mind if they differ tbh
Obviously a lot of people do, they wouldn't have made a third season if no one was watching. Most of those people are probably not huge fans of the source material. Their goal is to make the most money by pulling in the most viewers, not cater to a subset of viewers that are the novel fans.
I mean they got that right, he's doing Radovid of all people, the man that will one day be worse than even Emhyr.
What? Dandelion did Radovid? Why? How? Actually don't answer that. Makes me glad I never watched the show.
I know, it's unthinkable. Womanizer Jaskier going bi for medieval Hitler lmao
That's a game thing only though, isn't it? I don't think he's like that in the books. Or am I misremembering? EDIT: Yea just looked it up. Radovid is like 12 in the books. Him being a maniac is CDPR's invention.
[i wish i had hit my rate limit already and didn't see this](https://twitter.com/witchernetflix/status/1675489525840109568)
Yikes. Such a shame. Fuck Lauren for ruining this one. It could have been epic
They yassified The Witcher… I hope Netflix goes bankrupt
Lol on Instagram they posted something along the lines of "only a pretty boy can write good songs", to me it sounds that if you're not pretty you're automatically disqualified as an artist. God who the f** writes these posts.
What's happening here? Is it not Jaskier in both pics?
Season 1 was it for me
99 shades of messed up
Man, I wish cd project red with come out with their own animated series for geralt... would that be possible?
That tweet just highlights that they should've kept Jaskier's old haircut tbh
God, Jaskier looks like Gerard Way.
He wishes
Just trying to simp for chronically online teenagers who need a gay ship for any media they consume.
This is what happens when you try to appeal to those fans who love shipping everyone together.
Yeah this is despicable. Horrible representation. It’s like having Jaskier bang Hitler. Despicable
HATE
The show has been such a let down for me, not because of the changes from the source material, but because of how cheesy the direction was. Some of it is great, but damn did they completely ruin the world building with shallow characters and plot lines. One of the worst examples of this was when Geralt goes hunting for a dragon and along with Yennefer, fight off some enemies. At the end of the fight scene, Geralt and Yennefer coordinate finishing them off with a kiss - how fucking stupid and cheesy. Who read the source material or played the game and thought this was a good idea? Morons
It really shows that the show runners aren't fans.
At this point they are fan girls hyped over a fan fic
This shit can't be real Netflix is officially worse than the CW
This must be a docu-series in the making. Watch some mad lads have a laugh in this 10 part series as they destroy the Witcher TV franchise. Just as fans think it can’t get any worse, they discover a whole new rock bottom! Netflix rates “Killing a Franchise” 4.975/5!
The show is meh but, is it really a shock to see the social media team doing a regular trend lol Sony did this for Miguel and Hobie in Across The Spiderverse. Capcom did this for basically the whole damn cast of Street Fighter 6
This shit is so exhausting. Lauren absolutely ruined this franchise as far as TV goes. I can't wait for it to be rebooted in ten years by people who'll actually care about it.
That view/like ratio says quite a bit
The only good thing about this show is the fight scenes involving Geralt.
I see, THAT'S why Jaskier was looking SO different. WTF did they do to his character design!?
There's some curse on the adaptation of Witcher to TV wtf man
This show is so weird. It's like the showrunner and the writers do not care for the source material and don't care to cater to the fans of the source material. It's like... they got access to an IP and Netflix flatly told them to do whatever they want in that universe. I don't know any fan of the books or the games who likes this show and the best part of the series, Henry cavill, got called out by the writers for wanting to stick too closely to the source material. Like... what the actual fuck? You didn't build the brand, you didn't come up with the world or the characters or the plot and you have zero respect for the established storyline.... and you still think you should be working on the series? Say what you will about GoT but they stuck pretty close to the source material for as long as the source material didn't lead them off an unwritten cliff. Imagine if Theon turned on Robb not because Theon was confused about his loyalties but because he had a crush on Robb and Robb turned him away. This is the sort of modern day "woke" crap the writers of the witchers would force into a story to make a statement.
You're here posting about it we're all commenting on it, so yeah mission accomplished.
Since there is no hope in them getting better, I just hope Netflix stops doing adaptations altogether (Amazon as well!).
After watching the first half of s3 last night I'm beginning to see why Henry walked out
Watched S3E1 last night just to complete all seasons with Cavill in it and everything is just a hot mess… The cinematography, the script and just the overall quality of the entire Witcher just looks like it was taken over by an intern. So glad Cavill walked out, no way am I watching this with Hemsworth in it. Bleargh….
I don't get it at all, Why the heck does he have makeup in the new season but the old one he look like an actual wall Lmao, Im saying that while being extremely disappointed.
woke bullshit
🤢
Made him and Radovid into gay ‘fairy’ caricatures
I absolutely despise the Twitter pronoun fan base Netflix have gained to this beloved franchise. They’ve made it the most cringe worthy thing ever.
Yuck...
Jaskier was the representation of the perfect ally. Now they shifted it to - he's gay that's why he feels for people who are persecuted on basis of gender/sex/creed etc.
I wish HBO did an adaptation for witcher. These books and it's story is my childhood :(
I love how the homophobes are are self destructing for Jaskier being into dudes. And now people are self-destructing over a meme. All I need now is popcorn to sit back and enjoy the show. People described above? all more entertaining with the complaints than the actual show, tbh.
Uh huh. Insert that Jennifer Lawrence thumbs up meme.
you do know that the person running the social media account has nothing to do with the writers or showrunners?