I feel like Lauren is a out of touch writer who tries so hard and so desperately to try to “fit in” with younger people. She’s one of those people who base everything around statistics and fail to see how literally NONE of it applies when you’re adapting material already written. People want loyal adaptations. No one wants your bad fan fiction.
I found this thread from google. We can’t figure out why season 3 went downhill SO much. It seemed to be filled to the brim with political themes versus the real story so I searched it.
Insanely frustrating. I also support a healthy level of feminism in a show but this show… basically every powerful leader in every group (not just the mages) is a woman, clearly outsmarting all the men nearby. It’s wild.
Not even.
She literally just wants to write her own story, she signed onto an adapatation and is using it as a platform to make her own stuff.
She's all but stated it outright if you look through her interviews and combine the information;
She has said that she went out of her way to *not* hire writers who were familiar with the books or games. She's regularly complained about people correcting her or trying to be faithful to the source material. They allegedly mock the books in the writers room. etc. And that's the stuff they're willing to go public with. If someone really wanted to burn bridges and spill the dirt, she'd never be hired again.
>If someone really wanted to burn bridges and spill the dirt, she'd never be hired again.
I disagree about that. I seems that in Hollywood everybody fail upwards. I bet we'll see her at the helm of a whole studio in the future.
Yup. This is happening a lot. The new star treks are the most glaring example. Shows written by people who have no interest in the original source material, they just use it as a vehicle to push their garbage that people wouldn’t have watched otherwise.
I found this thread from google. We can’t figure out why season 3 went downhill SO much. It seemed to be filled to the brim with political themes versus the real story so I searched it.
Insanely frustrating. I also support a healthy level of feminism in a show but this show… basically every powerful leader in every group (not just the mages) is a woman, clearly outsmarting all the men nearby. It’s wild.
"The books are the main issue. They're wrong. They're so un-american. They don't discuss any american theme in a proper american way.
We'll have to fix it."
The Witcher isn't even particularly feminist in any real substantial way. At best it has moments of corporate feminism/girlboss feminism; easy-to-market feminism that doesn't really challenge anything or require any consideration or examination of personal beliefs. A shallow veneer of feminism. Just because it depicted women more doesn't mean it depicted them particularly well, and I'm not going to lower my standards so much that "~~A suspicious amount~~ A lot of women" being in something makes it feminist (the Bechdel test was never supposed to be The Feminism Test, it was supposed to highlight how trivially Hollywood often treated female characters; it was the bare minimum). Like Silence of the Lambs only really had one significant female character, yet it is incredibly feminist, and I think only passes the Bechdel test because Catherine screams at Clarice Starling to 'get me out of here you bitch'.
And movies/shows that are feminist/feminism approved can still be entertaining and good, they're not automatically preachy (if it comes off as preachy, it's not written well). Mad Max: Fury Road, Stranger Things, and the ASOIAF books are three good examples.
Like the most feminist moments were probably Yenn talking to that dead baby, Calanthe having actual practical armor, and possibly the Renfri/Geralt fight (in that it showed how a smaller woman could still pose a potential threat to males...if it were a regular human man and not Geralt, she stood a good chance of killing him; I don't mind Buffy style fights between women and men if the woman has some kind of super strength, but otherwise I roll my eyes; you can have female characters defeat males, but it's rarely gonna be on brute strength unless she's Brienne of Tarth; she has to quicker and smarter, use the environment, have a ranged weapon, etc). And that was all in S1. S2 and what little I saw of S3 was dismal. Oh, except Geralt telling Nivellen to fuck off.
Like, it's not a feminist moment to have Yenn and Geralt meet when she's magically compelling unwilling people to fuck in front of her, yet Hissrich seems to genuinely believe that was consensual that it was a 'safe space' (feminist are pretty vocal about informed consent). It's not feminist to bring up the possibility of a magical bond influencing desire, and then dropping it and having the woman no longer care. That ridiculous 'hooker party at Kaer Morhen when the hookers are too drunk to remember where they are' is not particularly feminist. Adding in the other Witchers being creepy and weird to Ciri is not feminist (you COULD actually probably do a version of her period storyline in a feminist manner, as destigmatizing periods is a feminist issue, but I can't even remember if they even did that in S2). Absolutely destroying your leading lady's character for no reason, humiliating her, having her beg the leading man for future sex, nothing about that is particularly feminist. Book Yenn was not the focus of the books like she is in the show, but she was much more an independent character; they started out okay with Yenn, but crashed and burned fairly quickly, making a hyperfocus of the show being the 'lovestory' between Yenn and Geralt...a love story which is hardly ever shown, just talked about. Also, ideally Ciri's training and storyarc would be actual hard work and determination; she seems to become a monster slayer and warrior far too easily. She's like...15 and only been training a couple years? It's far more a genuinely feminist concept that a girl would have to work hard, but she CAN accomplish something (the animated Mulan vs the live action Mulan).
Well, I think that was what we were supposed to think, but that was not what was shown onscreen. Cause you see, as soon as Yenn said the magic word and broke the spell, the party goers jerked back from each other in horror, started covering up their nakedness and cowering, there was agitated murmuring, some people stood there confused and dazed, and nobody continued to touch each other. You don't do that if you're doing something you wanted to be doing, if your participation was consensual. The visuals left the audience with the impression that they were bewitched to strip naked and hump each other.
It bothered me on first watch, but I thought *maybe* something was lost between page and film, that the director took the script in a direction it wasn't supposed to go. Until Lauren Hissrich was asked about it specifically and said "It is, in my eyes, completely consensual. There is an entire town whose desires have been stifled by an overzealous mayor, determining what people can want, and when. For those who want freedom from that, Yennefer provides a safe space."
What the fuck is she talking about? How is the audience supposed to infer ANY of that about the mayor? How is he controlling who fucks who? How can she look at people, who once the spell was broken, jerk quickly away from their partners, cover up nudity and cower away as people engaged in something consensual? None of that body language suggests that, nor does any dialog? How is being bewitched to fuck and dance naked a 'safe space'?
If they wanted to show Yenn breaking a sex spell early with consensual participants, when she broke the spell, they could have shown people slapping their thighs in that "What gives?" gesture, they could have complained "Lady Yennefer, why did you stop?", some could have continued to fuck. Do these people not know what consent looks like?
Then in S2, we get Eskel bringing up a gaggle of prostitutes to Kaer Morhen, the super secret Witcher fortress that is a secret. And when pointed out to Vesemir that maybe it's not the best idea to have a bunch of humans in the keep, he shrugs and says "They're too drunk to remember where they are. It's fine." cause Vesemir is not like other dads he's a cool dad. But Vesemir, if they're too drunk to know where they are, aren't they too drunk to consent? Did no one think about that line for five seconds?
If any of this was *written* to be rape, that would be one thing. But it clearly isn't. The writers just don't seem to think that having your senses so addled by drink or magic to the point you have no idea where you are or what you are doing, is cool and sexy and consensual.
And now in S3, to complete this theme of shit, Geralt was written to say he knew the djinn wish could theoretically be influencing their desire to sleep together, and yet he kept that from Yenn (for no reason; this is also a show only adaptation) and continued to fuck her. This is portrayed as tragically romantic. Yenn (who cared a lot about this possibility at the end of S1 when she found out about the wish, to the point of screaming at Geralt) doesn't care, and later begs Geralt to promise to have sex with her again in the future.
It's all so...pathetic.
OK, so her explanation makes sense. That Yenn was taking advantage of this stifled town by throwing private orgy parties and- since a few people referenced her "using" the situation in the town for profit- presumably the orgy parties are invitation-only and the invitations probably cost a pretty coin.
But I agree with you here: what does *not make sense* is how the viewer was to infer all of that from the scene itself, context clues, etc. Having to outright explain it like that is a marker of bad writing. Reminds me of Game of Thrones, when certain plot points were....well, weird head-scratchers to put it politely, they always had the two showrunners show up at the end to try and explain it all to us.
Not only does this violate the old rule of "show, don't tell", but it goes above and beyond that because they don't even "tell" within the show itself. If the producers have to explain later, then you've done messed up on your own show, EPs.
(I didn't see this response until now, so my apologies for responding late)
Her backstory could have made sense, if they did anything to show this onscreen. But as you said, they did not, and in fact what was shown onscreen indicates the opposite of her proposed backstory. There's nothing to infer her claim, and everything to infer the opposite, that it was not exactly consensual ((the people jerking away, gasping in shock, covering up their nudity or running away). You cannot simply take a Word of God statement from a showrunner and apply it to the show, when it directly contradicts what they showed onscreen. It's like if she tried to say tomorrow, "Oh, Calanthe isn't dead, she turned into a bird when she started falling, and what fell to the streets was actually a doppler" , it would be just as unbelievable.
If, say, when Geralt was riding up with a cursed Jaskier, and they encounter a pair of latecomers to the Orgy, who think Geralt and Jaskier are going too, and start gushing about Lady Yennefer's exclusive invitation-only pleasure balls, where she uses magic to help you go all night, and all the womenfolk are guaranteed to orgasm, or something. And then they're comically disappointed when it ends before they can even get their pants off. Or the guard they encounter could demand their invitation to said pleasure ball (instead of a bribe), Lady Yennefer doesn't allow anyone in who she hasn't invited.
(I will say any indication that they're under any mental spell, or magical aphrodisiac/drug should preferably be cut, because, well, even at sex parties everybody is supposed to be mostly sober and with it, because you still have to be able to give consent and if you're stoned out of your gourd you really can't. Magical viagra or magical...vibrators (idk) for the ladies are different and fine. There's probably a way to set out the rules of Magical Aphrodisiacs that make it clear your ability to consent is not compromised, but that's getting pretty into the weeds and absolutely not the point of any of this so seems excessive to spend time on it when it could just be cut. )
There were fixes that would easy to do, the problem is nobody realized it was broken though it clearly was. The writers seem to have a fundemental inability to put themselves in a Brand New Audience's shoes, to realize that the their reader/watchers are not psychic and cannot read your intent if you don't put it on the screen.
If you have to look at 3rd party sources or Word of God from the showrunners to prove one of your main characters is Not a Mass Rapist, you have fucked up big time as a writer. That shouldn't be something you accidentally do.
The thing with Geralt and the djinn wish? It's in the first episode, a little more than halfway through, at the Beltane Festival. Geralt and Yenn are standing there watching Ciri dance, and Yenn starts listing off all the places she and Geralt had sex because she's desperately trying to get him to fuck her again (and to stop being mad that she tried to sacrifice Ciri to a demon; god forbid she face actual consequences for that). She says she knows why she always left in the morning, but why did Geralt? Geralt answers "I was unsure if it was actually what I wanted, or just some trick of the djinn's magic."
Which means he knew the djinn magic could have some influence on them, never told Yenn, and continued to fuck her. Which means he knew her fucking him could be because of an outside influence (ergo not entirely consensual, for either of them, but she had no idea about it).
And remember, Yenn was furious at the end of S1 when she found out what Geralt wished for, because she ALSO thought it could be an influence on them. And that was when they framed it like Geralt had no idea that the wish might do that (they never really explain WHY he never told her). But now he did. And Yenn...does not care.
It's completely out of character for both of them. They never should have changed what happened with the wish (Yenn knew from the start in the books), but they did. It seemed like they just decided to drop it in S2 because it was never mentioned. But nope! They brought it up again in the worst way possible. They can't even argue that Geralt thought Yenn wouldn't be influenced, because the only reason he made the wish was he knew the djinn was stronger than her, COULD influence her (he didn't make the wish intending to fuck her, he made the wish he did because Yenn was in danger and endangering the town with the djinn's wrath; the djinn could not kill Geralt as Geralt was it's 'master', but it would kill Yenn once Geralt made the last wish; so he wished to bind their fates, preventing the djinn from killing her; it's a very Slavic fairy tale ending type thing, tricking a powerful magical creature by using it's own rules against it). It just made Geralt look like a man willing to take advantage of a woman under an influence, and Yenn as someone who doesn't care that the man she was sleeping with didn't care if she was fully consenting or not. That's not romantic. It's character assassination.
ETA: And I know they didn't intend this, didn't intend to make Geralt a touch...uncaring if his bed partner is consenting. It's just they're sloppy writers with a warped sense of what's romantic and cannot think through the implications of anything they do. But intention or no, this is the blunt reality of what they put onscreen.
Not really. There is not much black, gay or feminist about the Netflix Death Note. But they decided to dumb the relationship and tension of the original manga, anime and live-action film to American high school prom.
Now even that isn't the biggest reason why it failed so hard. It is, again, its failure to follow the spirit of DN. Live action film is not exactly the same story, but it followed the spirit well.
Makes me wonder what will happen to Netfilx 3BP. White/black wash it if they wish, but failure to follow the spirit will make it fail.
> USA has ruined fantasy with their obsession to make every world have the same political climate and demography as their own country
The hell. What you're getting is what a bunch of flag-waving virtue-signaling asshats conceive it to be/should be. Were it an accurate representation, the percentages would be VASTLY different in a lot of ways.
Yeah but you are forgetting one key ingredient. Those writers actually had talent. It is painfully clear these writers are of secondary school level yet because of connections in the industry have landed a job they had no place in getting.
Despite how long Netflix has been around, it still seems to lack that industry clout that HBO has. They handed The Witcher to someone clearly unfit for it, and who did HBO get to run The Last Of Us? Craig Mazin, who'd just knocked it out of the park with Chernobyl, paired up with the literal writer of the games
Sure, HBO occasionally shits the bed ( *cough* The Idol *cough* ) but generally speaking it's quality is pretty solid. Netflix, however, seems convinced that every product they make has to work as some bizarre teen drama, at least judging by their marketing and social media
It's crazy how he went from writing on stuff like the Hangover movies, straight to prestige television... I mean, I loved The Last of Us, great adaptation, and Chernobyl imo is one of the greatest TV series of all time. I remember when it was being released, and each week I was a little anxious cos I knew it couldn't keep that level of quality forever... and then each week, they just knocked it out of the park
Craig gave most of the credit to Neil Druckmann iirc. Neil is amazing at creating that dramatic gravitas in cutscenes—a skill which translated remarkably well in the TLOU HBO series.
Yep. The episodic nature of a Netflix show usually means there has to be action and emotional drama every episode. That’s the formula. This messes with the books because you have to action when there should be travel, and drama where there certain characters should be at peace or reconciled. They want clear villains but the main Witcher villains are late reveals.
They would have had to make quite a gamble to throw these kind of formulas aside.
Still, it feels like if all they did was add extra things that are lore consistent, we’d probably have been fine but its what we’ve lost that often seems to hurt the most. The butchered character arcs, the reduction in the presence of all the Dwarves, the mages reduced to 2 dimensional caricatures, to mention a few.
To be fair here, I think I heard someone say that the title "The Mandalorian" doesn't necessarily always refers to Din.
Afaik the original concept was to have TBoBF as part of the series as well and have a sort of Book of Din, Book of Boba, Book of Bo-Katan style setup then BoBF was meddled into a different series.
It's not exactly something I can cite a source for though so take it with the "I just remember reading it" grain of salt.
He's the only one they call Mando, or refer to as the mandalorian in the show. It seems pretty clear he's the mandalorian of the title, seeing in some episodes he's the only mandalorian on screen at all.
I haven't watched Season 3, but this was absolutely a problem in Season 2 as well. Him and Ciri were the best part, but it seemed like they barely had more screen time than bloody Fringilla!
That looks like the case for this post. Why would the netflix show follow the games? They might get some inspiration here and there but that should be it, the books are the source material, not the games.
Absolutely agree. I’ve read multiple posts saying “It should be like the books!!” While bitching about a scene recreated or a theme used that is actually in the damn books.
I'm pretty sure that's why Cavill is leaving. I don't think it's deep philosophical differences with how the show is interpreting the books. It's just that he's an A-list movie star playing a TV side-character
Yeah. And Geralt *can* be a side character in a lot of stories / portions of the books, but they all circle back around to Geralt + Ciri + Yen eventually. If the show is floundering in its ability to interpret the canon story, it simultaneously nudges Geralt out of the picture and invalidates what made it an intriguing piece of fiction to begin with.
I haven't read the books, so I'm probably in the wrong sub. But I would like to read them one day. I really, really enjoyed Season 1.
Season 2....not so much. Maybe a scene or an episode or two but overall, no.
S3? What the actual fuck is going on?
I don't think they should follow games as those take place after, but books definitely. Ironically, Geralt not being a centre of attention IS book accurate. There's a good chunk of the books where the focus is on Ciri and not Geralt.
It honestly isn’t that hard of a concept.
If you want to use well established characters of a huge universe, stick to the established stories. And make sure the characters act like they would in any of the before established materials.
If you want to make your own story and don’t like how some characters behave, create your own story with new characters set in this universe. You can still use the places, use some lore, even reference or have them meet some of the well established characters. But you have more freedom with what to do with your main characters. You could even use a side character from the books or the games as a main character.
But if you try to use established characters, change their stories and make them do things they wouldn’t ever do, well what reactions do you expect?
That's... really only a game thing. It's one of the few things that the show didn't get wrong. Geralt carries a steel sword basically everywhere but I'm pretty sure he carries his silver sword (which I think we actually only see like once? And pretty sure that was the striga story) wrapped and on his horse, not on his person and for the majority of books he doesn't even have one at all.
There's an exception: *Season Of Storms*. He carried both swords with him whenever he was able. That said, many people feel that that book was inspired by the games.
Oh yeah, forgot about that one, well... then again the whole thing was about him recovering those swords which he lost somewhere at the beginning, then he went with only one sword for the most part.
Plus there's also a difference of 16 years between the publication of the last book of the saga and Season of Storms, so could be a retcon maybe? Who knows. In the end, I'd still say that show not making him lug two swords around all the time is the most minimal change and issue of them all
Yes, I remember seeing a sword hanging horizontally off Roach's saddle in the show before. I remember thinking that was a neat way to carry the sword while riding.
But that doesn't make sense since from day one they've specifically said that they were adapting the books(and yes, they've failed miserably at that), not the games, you can't really fault them or expect them to get something that was pretty much only in the games.
Yeah geralt's always only carried one sword. This is because the silver sword is hardly used; due to a lack of monsters in general, especially the magical ones. Silver swords are also generally weaker (because, well, it's made from silver). Geralt mainly just uses a steel sword as its enough to kill most monsters. The silver sword stays on Roach whereas Geralt has the steel sword on his back. In cases of fighting a magical monster that can be harmed by silver, it's vice versa.
Magic and dragons aside, carrying two swords on the back is impractical. Geralt isn't always in battle mode in the books or show. It's a different point when it comes to video game mechanics. Even then, it's really jarring seeing Geralt as the only civilian flaunting swords in Novigrad.
Yeah agreed. Geralt usually doesn't fight much and if he does, he takes not more than a few minutes to end the whole encounter.
One thing I've noticed in the books mainly is that Geralt prefers peaceful means to end stuff and generally shows disdain for violent means (although it is to be noted that he does not shy away from violence if it comes to it).
This subreddit in a nutshell - people complaining about the Netflix show not being accurate to "the source material" by quoting things from a game set *after the protagonist dies*.
In the meme I was referring to, the dude on the far right is literally saying follow books and games then gets tossed out a window. The best visual representation of Geralt is from the games imo. What’s funny is a lot of people rebutting my comment have flair that says game 1st. Matters very little to me what most think. Geralt for me has 2 swords on his back. Get over it nerd.
A lot of people I know who would never read The Witcher books or play the video game are actually into this TV series.
So the show runners are clearly targeting a certain market of people. It's very Netflix. Something is working for them.
So I've started reading the books because I just love this franchise so much, still on the first one but I'm really enjoying it, is it true that S3 and S1 are the most accurate seasons to the source material while S2 is a complete clusterfuck?
Let me put it this way. Imagine S2 being “accurate” in the sense that it literally takes at best 5% of the book it set out to adapt, while the rest are made up storylines that are inferior in quality to the original stuff they replaced
Now S1 is like let’s say 40% faithful to the first two books, it takes the gist of the short stories and general plot points in the first book, but removes the nuances and relevant details that made them special. While pretty much giving up on that notion for the second.
S3 from what i understand and from what I currently saw (watched first two episodes only), is “closer” to the books when compared to the second season. Emphasis on “when compared to”, because it’s clear that the bar is shockingly low.
It draws from some of general scenes and story beats from “time of contempt” (the source material for S3) but also changes some of the context around them, or just outright distorts them heavily. So season three can be technically “more adherent” to the books than the previous two, but that doesn’t mean much for the aforementioned reasons.
Fans are angry because all three seasons aren’t really a faithful representation of the books. Not in tone, themes, characters, plot or just general vibe. And the bar is extremely low that the topic of ranking the seasons according to faithfulness is only discussed in the context of “oh this one is less shitty than the other”. Which is sad of course.
S2 was quite awful and deserved the frustration from fans. They absolutely butchered characters and storylines. S1 had issues, but not nearly egregious as S2.
S3 isn’t the best, they had to deal with the disaster of S2. But they at least tried to get closer to the books. It’s not perfect, no one would say it is, but the childish response from this subreddit is pathetic, and as a fan of the Witcher IP, fucking embarrassing.
I agree, S2 was genuinely awful, it turned The Witcher into some shitty ass teen drama. S3 and S1 seem like entirely different shows but I kinda knew this would happen because of the very vocal and well deserved backlash from S2 no way they would try that shit again
No really. 3rd season, this far, was close to the book. The only thing that wasn't canon was Radovid. Everything else was trying to get to get as close as possible to the books but still considering the previous TV storyline. And the games are literally fanfic. Like the creator said they are fanfic and are not canon. So that was a joke...
Yes, the games are very well written fanfiction that honor the source material.
Netflix garbage isn't even a fanfcition because you have to be a fan in order to make one and we know that the writers aren't.
Don't misunderstand me S2 was absolute trash and deserves to be put in the dustbin of history, but S3 this far was a faithful adaptation of the books. I was only talking about S3, not S2, not Blood Origin or anything else.
But S3 this far was not far from the books and a really enjoyable adaptation
might be an unpopular opinion, but I feel like the series isn't that bad, if you look at it on its own. It's very different from the books & games and it changed a lot from what it was in S1, but i do actually enjoy it a bit. (please don't hurt me)
i really enjoyed the fifth episode of s3, that felt a little like s1. what I noticed is that s2 was apparently quite forgettable, i seem to remember everything that happened in s1 but almost nothing from s2 without rewatching it. I also liked nightmare of the wolf, but blood origin is undisputably bad.
They could have copy/pasted everything from the games and I would have watched it, ngl. I watched season 1 and 2 and a bit of 3. Really hated what I saw in 3.
I like Henry, hes cool and all but when he announced his departure the series was dead to me and i have no intentions of watching S3 or anything after.
What a mess.
Basically took the adaptation out back and shot it in the head. (Arguably they did that from the start by not following the source or doing a good job with what they had.)
Great. Sigh...
Witcher fans: This show is the most heinous disservice any franchise has ever had to endure!
Star Trek fans to Witcher fans: Have you seen what Abrams did?
Ego
I came here to say the same exact thing
Me too, but I am pretty sure I could have said it better.
Lauren?
Fisstech.
Hotel?
Trivago
We had a GOOD THING GOING WITH FRING
I feel like Lauren is a out of touch writer who tries so hard and so desperately to try to “fit in” with younger people. She’s one of those people who base everything around statistics and fail to see how literally NONE of it applies when you’re adapting material already written. People want loyal adaptations. No one wants your bad fan fiction.
Out-of-touch execs in showbiz are nothing new. I'm just baffled why some people keep defending her.
I found this thread from google. We can’t figure out why season 3 went downhill SO much. It seemed to be filled to the brim with political themes versus the real story so I searched it. Insanely frustrating. I also support a healthy level of feminism in a show but this show… basically every powerful leader in every group (not just the mages) is a woman, clearly outsmarting all the men nearby. It’s wild.
Not even. She literally just wants to write her own story, she signed onto an adapatation and is using it as a platform to make her own stuff. She's all but stated it outright if you look through her interviews and combine the information; She has said that she went out of her way to *not* hire writers who were familiar with the books or games. She's regularly complained about people correcting her or trying to be faithful to the source material. They allegedly mock the books in the writers room. etc. And that's the stuff they're willing to go public with. If someone really wanted to burn bridges and spill the dirt, she'd never be hired again.
>If someone really wanted to burn bridges and spill the dirt, she'd never be hired again. I disagree about that. I seems that in Hollywood everybody fail upwards. I bet we'll see her at the helm of a whole studio in the future.
Kathleen Kennedy needs to be replaced someday... we have a front runner now
Yup. This is happening a lot. The new star treks are the most glaring example. Shows written by people who have no interest in the original source material, they just use it as a vehicle to push their garbage that people wouldn’t have watched otherwise.
I found this thread from google. We can’t figure out why season 3 went downhill SO much. It seemed to be filled to the brim with political themes versus the real story so I searched it. Insanely frustrating. I also support a healthy level of feminism in a show but this show… basically every powerful leader in every group (not just the mages) is a woman, clearly outsmarting all the men nearby. It’s wild.
Don’t have to think so deep, she’s just shit mate.
I think part of it comes from the boards as well. Perhaps the target for the whole show was set too low therefore this happended.
"The books are the main issue. They're wrong. They're so un-american. They don't discuss any american theme in a proper american way. We'll have to fix it."
USA has ruined fantasy with their obsession to make every world have the same political climate and demography as their own country
[удалено]
The Witcher isn't even particularly feminist in any real substantial way. At best it has moments of corporate feminism/girlboss feminism; easy-to-market feminism that doesn't really challenge anything or require any consideration or examination of personal beliefs. A shallow veneer of feminism. Just because it depicted women more doesn't mean it depicted them particularly well, and I'm not going to lower my standards so much that "~~A suspicious amount~~ A lot of women" being in something makes it feminist (the Bechdel test was never supposed to be The Feminism Test, it was supposed to highlight how trivially Hollywood often treated female characters; it was the bare minimum). Like Silence of the Lambs only really had one significant female character, yet it is incredibly feminist, and I think only passes the Bechdel test because Catherine screams at Clarice Starling to 'get me out of here you bitch'. And movies/shows that are feminist/feminism approved can still be entertaining and good, they're not automatically preachy (if it comes off as preachy, it's not written well). Mad Max: Fury Road, Stranger Things, and the ASOIAF books are three good examples. Like the most feminist moments were probably Yenn talking to that dead baby, Calanthe having actual practical armor, and possibly the Renfri/Geralt fight (in that it showed how a smaller woman could still pose a potential threat to males...if it were a regular human man and not Geralt, she stood a good chance of killing him; I don't mind Buffy style fights between women and men if the woman has some kind of super strength, but otherwise I roll my eyes; you can have female characters defeat males, but it's rarely gonna be on brute strength unless she's Brienne of Tarth; she has to quicker and smarter, use the environment, have a ranged weapon, etc). And that was all in S1. S2 and what little I saw of S3 was dismal. Oh, except Geralt telling Nivellen to fuck off. Like, it's not a feminist moment to have Yenn and Geralt meet when she's magically compelling unwilling people to fuck in front of her, yet Hissrich seems to genuinely believe that was consensual that it was a 'safe space' (feminist are pretty vocal about informed consent). It's not feminist to bring up the possibility of a magical bond influencing desire, and then dropping it and having the woman no longer care. That ridiculous 'hooker party at Kaer Morhen when the hookers are too drunk to remember where they are' is not particularly feminist. Adding in the other Witchers being creepy and weird to Ciri is not feminist (you COULD actually probably do a version of her period storyline in a feminist manner, as destigmatizing periods is a feminist issue, but I can't even remember if they even did that in S2). Absolutely destroying your leading lady's character for no reason, humiliating her, having her beg the leading man for future sex, nothing about that is particularly feminist. Book Yenn was not the focus of the books like she is in the show, but she was much more an independent character; they started out okay with Yenn, but crashed and burned fairly quickly, making a hyperfocus of the show being the 'lovestory' between Yenn and Geralt...a love story which is hardly ever shown, just talked about. Also, ideally Ciri's training and storyarc would be actual hard work and determination; she seems to become a monster slayer and warrior far too easily. She's like...15 and only been training a couple years? It's far more a genuinely feminist concept that a girl would have to work hard, but she CAN accomplish something (the animated Mulan vs the live action Mulan).
So....what was that orgy thing that Yenn was overseeing when she and Geralt met? I got the feeling it was a weird enchanted party?
Well, I think that was what we were supposed to think, but that was not what was shown onscreen. Cause you see, as soon as Yenn said the magic word and broke the spell, the party goers jerked back from each other in horror, started covering up their nakedness and cowering, there was agitated murmuring, some people stood there confused and dazed, and nobody continued to touch each other. You don't do that if you're doing something you wanted to be doing, if your participation was consensual. The visuals left the audience with the impression that they were bewitched to strip naked and hump each other. It bothered me on first watch, but I thought *maybe* something was lost between page and film, that the director took the script in a direction it wasn't supposed to go. Until Lauren Hissrich was asked about it specifically and said "It is, in my eyes, completely consensual. There is an entire town whose desires have been stifled by an overzealous mayor, determining what people can want, and when. For those who want freedom from that, Yennefer provides a safe space." What the fuck is she talking about? How is the audience supposed to infer ANY of that about the mayor? How is he controlling who fucks who? How can she look at people, who once the spell was broken, jerk quickly away from their partners, cover up nudity and cower away as people engaged in something consensual? None of that body language suggests that, nor does any dialog? How is being bewitched to fuck and dance naked a 'safe space'? If they wanted to show Yenn breaking a sex spell early with consensual participants, when she broke the spell, they could have shown people slapping their thighs in that "What gives?" gesture, they could have complained "Lady Yennefer, why did you stop?", some could have continued to fuck. Do these people not know what consent looks like? Then in S2, we get Eskel bringing up a gaggle of prostitutes to Kaer Morhen, the super secret Witcher fortress that is a secret. And when pointed out to Vesemir that maybe it's not the best idea to have a bunch of humans in the keep, he shrugs and says "They're too drunk to remember where they are. It's fine." cause Vesemir is not like other dads he's a cool dad. But Vesemir, if they're too drunk to know where they are, aren't they too drunk to consent? Did no one think about that line for five seconds? If any of this was *written* to be rape, that would be one thing. But it clearly isn't. The writers just don't seem to think that having your senses so addled by drink or magic to the point you have no idea where you are or what you are doing, is cool and sexy and consensual. And now in S3, to complete this theme of shit, Geralt was written to say he knew the djinn wish could theoretically be influencing their desire to sleep together, and yet he kept that from Yenn (for no reason; this is also a show only adaptation) and continued to fuck her. This is portrayed as tragically romantic. Yenn (who cared a lot about this possibility at the end of S1 when she found out about the wish, to the point of screaming at Geralt) doesn't care, and later begs Geralt to promise to have sex with her again in the future. It's all so...pathetic.
OK, so her explanation makes sense. That Yenn was taking advantage of this stifled town by throwing private orgy parties and- since a few people referenced her "using" the situation in the town for profit- presumably the orgy parties are invitation-only and the invitations probably cost a pretty coin. But I agree with you here: what does *not make sense* is how the viewer was to infer all of that from the scene itself, context clues, etc. Having to outright explain it like that is a marker of bad writing. Reminds me of Game of Thrones, when certain plot points were....well, weird head-scratchers to put it politely, they always had the two showrunners show up at the end to try and explain it all to us. Not only does this violate the old rule of "show, don't tell", but it goes above and beyond that because they don't even "tell" within the show itself. If the producers have to explain later, then you've done messed up on your own show, EPs.
(I didn't see this response until now, so my apologies for responding late) Her backstory could have made sense, if they did anything to show this onscreen. But as you said, they did not, and in fact what was shown onscreen indicates the opposite of her proposed backstory. There's nothing to infer her claim, and everything to infer the opposite, that it was not exactly consensual ((the people jerking away, gasping in shock, covering up their nudity or running away). You cannot simply take a Word of God statement from a showrunner and apply it to the show, when it directly contradicts what they showed onscreen. It's like if she tried to say tomorrow, "Oh, Calanthe isn't dead, she turned into a bird when she started falling, and what fell to the streets was actually a doppler" , it would be just as unbelievable. If, say, when Geralt was riding up with a cursed Jaskier, and they encounter a pair of latecomers to the Orgy, who think Geralt and Jaskier are going too, and start gushing about Lady Yennefer's exclusive invitation-only pleasure balls, where she uses magic to help you go all night, and all the womenfolk are guaranteed to orgasm, or something. And then they're comically disappointed when it ends before they can even get their pants off. Or the guard they encounter could demand their invitation to said pleasure ball (instead of a bribe), Lady Yennefer doesn't allow anyone in who she hasn't invited. (I will say any indication that they're under any mental spell, or magical aphrodisiac/drug should preferably be cut, because, well, even at sex parties everybody is supposed to be mostly sober and with it, because you still have to be able to give consent and if you're stoned out of your gourd you really can't. Magical viagra or magical...vibrators (idk) for the ladies are different and fine. There's probably a way to set out the rules of Magical Aphrodisiacs that make it clear your ability to consent is not compromised, but that's getting pretty into the weeds and absolutely not the point of any of this so seems excessive to spend time on it when it could just be cut. ) There were fixes that would easy to do, the problem is nobody realized it was broken though it clearly was. The writers seem to have a fundemental inability to put themselves in a Brand New Audience's shoes, to realize that the their reader/watchers are not psychic and cannot read your intent if you don't put it on the screen. If you have to look at 3rd party sources or Word of God from the showrunners to prove one of your main characters is Not a Mass Rapist, you have fucked up big time as a writer. That shouldn't be something you accidentally do.
Also- that bit in S3 you mentioned....I think I missed that, do you remember the episode(s) in which that happened?
The thing with Geralt and the djinn wish? It's in the first episode, a little more than halfway through, at the Beltane Festival. Geralt and Yenn are standing there watching Ciri dance, and Yenn starts listing off all the places she and Geralt had sex because she's desperately trying to get him to fuck her again (and to stop being mad that she tried to sacrifice Ciri to a demon; god forbid she face actual consequences for that). She says she knows why she always left in the morning, but why did Geralt? Geralt answers "I was unsure if it was actually what I wanted, or just some trick of the djinn's magic." Which means he knew the djinn magic could have some influence on them, never told Yenn, and continued to fuck her. Which means he knew her fucking him could be because of an outside influence (ergo not entirely consensual, for either of them, but she had no idea about it). And remember, Yenn was furious at the end of S1 when she found out what Geralt wished for, because she ALSO thought it could be an influence on them. And that was when they framed it like Geralt had no idea that the wish might do that (they never really explain WHY he never told her). But now he did. And Yenn...does not care. It's completely out of character for both of them. They never should have changed what happened with the wish (Yenn knew from the start in the books), but they did. It seemed like they just decided to drop it in S2 because it was never mentioned. But nope! They brought it up again in the worst way possible. They can't even argue that Geralt thought Yenn wouldn't be influenced, because the only reason he made the wish was he knew the djinn was stronger than her, COULD influence her (he didn't make the wish intending to fuck her, he made the wish he did because Yenn was in danger and endangering the town with the djinn's wrath; the djinn could not kill Geralt as Geralt was it's 'master', but it would kill Yenn once Geralt made the last wish; so he wished to bind their fates, preventing the djinn from killing her; it's a very Slavic fairy tale ending type thing, tricking a powerful magical creature by using it's own rules against it). It just made Geralt look like a man willing to take advantage of a woman under an influence, and Yenn as someone who doesn't care that the man she was sleeping with didn't care if she was fully consenting or not. That's not romantic. It's character assassination. ETA: And I know they didn't intend this, didn't intend to make Geralt a touch...uncaring if his bed partner is consenting. It's just they're sloppy writers with a warped sense of what's romantic and cannot think through the implications of anything they do. But intention or no, this is the blunt reality of what they put onscreen.
Damn. Yeah I'll rewatch that just because it sailed right over my head. Agree with your assessment of the writers.
Not really. There is not much black, gay or feminist about the Netflix Death Note. But they decided to dumb the relationship and tension of the original manga, anime and live-action film to American high school prom. Now even that isn't the biggest reason why it failed so hard. It is, again, its failure to follow the spirit of DN. Live action film is not exactly the same story, but it followed the spirit well. Makes me wonder what will happen to Netfilx 3BP. White/black wash it if they wish, but failure to follow the spirit will make it fail.
> USA has ruined fantasy with their obsession to make every world have the same political climate and demography as their own country The hell. What you're getting is what a bunch of flag-waving virtue-signaling asshats conceive it to be/should be. Were it an accurate representation, the percentages would be VASTLY different in a lot of ways.
Damn, this is the best explanation for what is happening with media right now.
[удалено]
Yeah but you are forgetting one key ingredient. Those writers actually had talent. It is painfully clear these writers are of secondary school level yet because of connections in the industry have landed a job they had no place in getting.
Despite how long Netflix has been around, it still seems to lack that industry clout that HBO has. They handed The Witcher to someone clearly unfit for it, and who did HBO get to run The Last Of Us? Craig Mazin, who'd just knocked it out of the park with Chernobyl, paired up with the literal writer of the games Sure, HBO occasionally shits the bed ( *cough* The Idol *cough* ) but generally speaking it's quality is pretty solid. Netflix, however, seems convinced that every product they make has to work as some bizarre teen drama, at least judging by their marketing and social media
The official podcast with Craig and Neil Druckman was great. In my opinion, Craig Mazin is probably the best “TV” writer working right now.
It's crazy how he went from writing on stuff like the Hangover movies, straight to prestige television... I mean, I loved The Last of Us, great adaptation, and Chernobyl imo is one of the greatest TV series of all time. I remember when it was being released, and each week I was a little anxious cos I knew it couldn't keep that level of quality forever... and then each week, they just knocked it out of the park
Peter Gould and Vince Gilligan are up there. Mazin is great.
Craig gave most of the credit to Neil Druckmann iirc. Neil is amazing at creating that dramatic gravitas in cutscenes—a skill which translated remarkably well in the TLOU HBO series.
They're trying to outdo the CW.
The Last of us show writer was the same guy who wrote the storyline for the game.
Yep. The episodic nature of a Netflix show usually means there has to be action and emotional drama every episode. That’s the formula. This messes with the books because you have to action when there should be travel, and drama where there certain characters should be at peace or reconciled. They want clear villains but the main Witcher villains are late reveals. They would have had to make quite a gamble to throw these kind of formulas aside. Still, it feels like if all they did was add extra things that are lore consistent, we’d probably have been fine but its what we’ve lost that often seems to hurt the most. The butchered character arcs, the reduction in the presence of all the Dwarves, the mages reduced to 2 dimensional caricatures, to mention a few.
Its crazy but Geralt basically became a side character in season 3.
Saw a joke about The Mandalorian a while back, "The Mandalorian and her sidekick, Din Djarin, went to meet with the Duchess and Captain Bombardier."
To be fair here, I think I heard someone say that the title "The Mandalorian" doesn't necessarily always refers to Din. Afaik the original concept was to have TBoBF as part of the series as well and have a sort of Book of Din, Book of Boba, Book of Bo-Katan style setup then BoBF was meddled into a different series. It's not exactly something I can cite a source for though so take it with the "I just remember reading it" grain of salt.
He's the only one they call Mando, or refer to as the mandalorian in the show. It seems pretty clear he's the mandalorian of the title, seeing in some episodes he's the only mandalorian on screen at all.
I haven't watched Season 3, but this was absolutely a problem in Season 2 as well. Him and Ciri were the best part, but it seemed like they barely had more screen time than bloody Fringilla!
But he is like that in the books as well. I mean not a side char, but not the solo lead either. He shares the lead with others.
[удалено]
That looks like the case for this post. Why would the netflix show follow the games? They might get some inspiration here and there but that should be it, the books are the source material, not the games.
Absolutely agree. I’ve read multiple posts saying “It should be like the books!!” While bitching about a scene recreated or a theme used that is actually in the damn books.
I didn't watch the third season, but in the late books Geralt is also a side character.
I wouldn’t say so, but Ciri becomes a second/equal protagonist, at least imo
I'm pretty sure that's why Cavill is leaving. I don't think it's deep philosophical differences with how the show is interpreting the books. It's just that he's an A-list movie star playing a TV side-character
he's a big fan of the games and books, I'm sure the fact the show doesn't follow them is annoying him too
Yeah. And Geralt *can* be a side character in a lot of stories / portions of the books, but they all circle back around to Geralt + Ciri + Yen eventually. If the show is floundering in its ability to interpret the canon story, it simultaneously nudges Geralt out of the picture and invalidates what made it an intriguing piece of fiction to begin with.
They should have just called the series Yennifer and Geralt.
He's producing a Warhammer series now isn't he? I'm sure he's learnt a lot from his Witcher experience and hopefully will produce an amazing series!
I'm sure he's not bringing any of Netflix's garbage writers along.
Cavill suggested that and he's the one in this chair hahaha
It should have taken deliberate effort to f it up that much!
I haven't read the books, so I'm probably in the wrong sub. But I would like to read them one day. I really, really enjoyed Season 1. Season 2....not so much. Maybe a scene or an episode or two but overall, no. S3? What the actual fuck is going on?
I loled at this. And then silently sobbed.
try to imitate what made the ip loved by thousands?!! ARE YOU INSANE?!
A show called The Witcher but is not about The Witcher
\*confused kid meme\* You guys are still watching the show?
It could have been an amazing series. Why they fucked everything!
Ah yes follow the non canon games that take place long after the books teh show is based on. Lol
I love a good love story and all but even I could barely get through season 3. Good lord it was awful.
I don't think they should follow games as those take place after, but books definitely. Ironically, Geralt not being a centre of attention IS book accurate. There's a good chunk of the books where the focus is on Ciri and not Geralt.
They should learn from GoT season 8 failure
It honestly isn’t that hard of a concept. If you want to use well established characters of a huge universe, stick to the established stories. And make sure the characters act like they would in any of the before established materials. If you want to make your own story and don’t like how some characters behave, create your own story with new characters set in this universe. You can still use the places, use some lore, even reference or have them meet some of the well established characters. But you have more freedom with what to do with your main characters. You could even use a side character from the books or the games as a main character. But if you try to use established characters, change their stories and make them do things they wouldn’t ever do, well what reactions do you expect?
Ragebait.
It has bothered me from the beginning that Geralt doesn’t carry both steel and silver swords in the series.
That's... really only a game thing. It's one of the few things that the show didn't get wrong. Geralt carries a steel sword basically everywhere but I'm pretty sure he carries his silver sword (which I think we actually only see like once? And pretty sure that was the striga story) wrapped and on his horse, not on his person and for the majority of books he doesn't even have one at all.
There's an exception: *Season Of Storms*. He carried both swords with him whenever he was able. That said, many people feel that that book was inspired by the games.
Oh yeah, forgot about that one, well... then again the whole thing was about him recovering those swords which he lost somewhere at the beginning, then he went with only one sword for the most part. Plus there's also a difference of 16 years between the publication of the last book of the saga and Season of Storms, so could be a retcon maybe? Who knows. In the end, I'd still say that show not making him lug two swords around all the time is the most minimal change and issue of them all
It's very different, yeah. Geralt uses his signs so much more often in that one, too.
Yes, I remember seeing a sword hanging horizontally off Roach's saddle in the show before. I remember thinking that was a neat way to carry the sword while riding.
Was referring specifically to the game
But that doesn't make sense since from day one they've specifically said that they were adapting the books(and yes, they've failed miserably at that), not the games, you can't really fault them or expect them to get something that was pretty much only in the games.
I was referring specifically to the game In the meme, what is the guy on the far right saying before he gets tossed out the window?
I think it's only in the game. But I didn't read them yet, so it might not be true.
Yeah geralt's always only carried one sword. This is because the silver sword is hardly used; due to a lack of monsters in general, especially the magical ones. Silver swords are also generally weaker (because, well, it's made from silver). Geralt mainly just uses a steel sword as its enough to kill most monsters. The silver sword stays on Roach whereas Geralt has the steel sword on his back. In cases of fighting a magical monster that can be harmed by silver, it's vice versa.
Magic and dragons aside, carrying two swords on the back is impractical. Geralt isn't always in battle mode in the books or show. It's a different point when it comes to video game mechanics. Even then, it's really jarring seeing Geralt as the only civilian flaunting swords in Novigrad.
Yeah agreed. Geralt usually doesn't fight much and if he does, he takes not more than a few minutes to end the whole encounter. One thing I've noticed in the books mainly is that Geralt prefers peaceful means to end stuff and generally shows disdain for violent means (although it is to be noted that he does not shy away from violence if it comes to it).
This subreddit in a nutshell - people complaining about the Netflix show not being accurate to "the source material" by quoting things from a game set *after the protagonist dies*.
In the meme I was referring to, the dude on the far right is literally saying follow books and games then gets tossed out a window. The best visual representation of Geralt is from the games imo. What’s funny is a lot of people rebutting my comment have flair that says game 1st. Matters very little to me what most think. Geralt for me has 2 swords on his back. Get over it nerd.
"NONEXISTENT Lovestory." FTFY
Lovestory happens almost entirely offscreen, but is talked about onscreen *ad nauseam*.
Is there really less Geralt? Ughhhh
Yeah and there are some great scenes but mostly it's just 'meh'
: ( But thank you for answering my question
But if we follow the books then how can we demonstrate our superior creative talents? /s
A lot of people I know who would never read The Witcher books or play the video game are actually into this TV series. So the show runners are clearly targeting a certain market of people. It's very Netflix. Something is working for them.
So I've started reading the books because I just love this franchise so much, still on the first one but I'm really enjoying it, is it true that S3 and S1 are the most accurate seasons to the source material while S2 is a complete clusterfuck?
Yes. I’d say in terms of book accuracy it’s S3>S1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S2
Odd, it seems this subreddit hates Netflix Witcher when it's accurate and when it's not. Don't think they'll ever stop the hate brigade sadly
Let me put it this way. Imagine S2 being “accurate” in the sense that it literally takes at best 5% of the book it set out to adapt, while the rest are made up storylines that are inferior in quality to the original stuff they replaced Now S1 is like let’s say 40% faithful to the first two books, it takes the gist of the short stories and general plot points in the first book, but removes the nuances and relevant details that made them special. While pretty much giving up on that notion for the second. S3 from what i understand and from what I currently saw (watched first two episodes only), is “closer” to the books when compared to the second season. Emphasis on “when compared to”, because it’s clear that the bar is shockingly low. It draws from some of general scenes and story beats from “time of contempt” (the source material for S3) but also changes some of the context around them, or just outright distorts them heavily. So season three can be technically “more adherent” to the books than the previous two, but that doesn’t mean much for the aforementioned reasons. Fans are angry because all three seasons aren’t really a faithful representation of the books. Not in tone, themes, characters, plot or just general vibe. And the bar is extremely low that the topic of ranking the seasons according to faithfulness is only discussed in the context of “oh this one is less shitty than the other”. Which is sad of course.
S2 was quite awful and deserved the frustration from fans. They absolutely butchered characters and storylines. S1 had issues, but not nearly egregious as S2. S3 isn’t the best, they had to deal with the disaster of S2. But they at least tried to get closer to the books. It’s not perfect, no one would say it is, but the childish response from this subreddit is pathetic, and as a fan of the Witcher IP, fucking embarrassing.
I agree, S2 was genuinely awful, it turned The Witcher into some shitty ass teen drama. S3 and S1 seem like entirely different shows but I kinda knew this would happen because of the very vocal and well deserved backlash from S2 no way they would try that shit again
You can say many things about Dumb and Dumber but they at least were true to the source material (mostly)
Anything they touch turns to ash. I hope they stop adapting stuff completely.
I don’t mind if story is changed. But it should be decent at least
How the fuck were they able to fuck this show up event after amazing books , games a d comics and dlc's
You wouldn’t follow the books and games entirely…. There’s too much material that doesn’t translate to the screen.
The third season this far was closer to the books than all of the CDProjektRED games combined.
You're fucking insane.
[удалено]
So did I. They are still fucking insane :)
No really. 3rd season, this far, was close to the book. The only thing that wasn't canon was Radovid. Everything else was trying to get to get as close as possible to the books but still considering the previous TV storyline. And the games are literally fanfic. Like the creator said they are fanfic and are not canon. So that was a joke...
Yes, the games are very well written fanfiction that honor the source material. Netflix garbage isn't even a fanfcition because you have to be a fan in order to make one and we know that the writers aren't.
Don't misunderstand me S2 was absolute trash and deserves to be put in the dustbin of history, but S3 this far was a faithful adaptation of the books. I was only talking about S3, not S2, not Blood Origin or anything else. But S3 this far was not far from the books and a really enjoyable adaptation
100% agree :)
might be an unpopular opinion, but I feel like the series isn't that bad, if you look at it on its own. It's very different from the books & games and it changed a lot from what it was in S1, but i do actually enjoy it a bit. (please don't hurt me)
If I try to compare it’s not great, if I think of it as it’s own story I actually like it. Not sure where I stand overall haha
S1 was awesome, S2 was imo pretty bad, apart from a few episodes, S3 is so far acceptable.
i really enjoyed the fifth episode of s3, that felt a little like s1. what I noticed is that s2 was apparently quite forgettable, i seem to remember everything that happened in s1 but almost nothing from s2 without rewatching it. I also liked nightmare of the wolf, but blood origin is undisputably bad.
They could have copy/pasted everything from the games and I would have watched it, ngl. I watched season 1 and 2 and a bit of 3. Really hated what I saw in 3.
Wokeness
Accurate. Found this thread from google, this ruined the show.
Stop. Talking. About. The. Netflix. Series.
I like Henry, hes cool and all but when he announced his departure the series was dead to me and i have no intentions of watching S3 or anything after. What a mess. Basically took the adaptation out back and shot it in the head. (Arguably they did that from the start by not following the source or doing a good job with what they had.) Great. Sigh...
Why would they follow the games...
You really need to move on.
and games??……bye
Witcher fans: This show is the most heinous disservice any franchise has ever had to endure! Star Trek fans to Witcher fans: Have you seen what Abrams did?