The Witcher - A Netflix Series

I laughed at how had they had to pretend Yennifer didn't try to sell Ciri to a demon last season just so they could get to the relationship they should have had at this point. That random elf guy played by Robbie Amell was really boring as a character, which is a shame because I liked seeing Robbie again. Other that that I thought these 5 episodes were good.

The best thing Is it wasn't even a plot point in the books and it shows. With how they carefully ignore it.

I mean, the writing team has made it clear how little care they have for the original story. It's not much of a surprise.

So, according to some rumours, there will be a "lore-accurate" explanation on Geralt's actor change

https://redanianintelligence.com/2023/07/19/the-witcher-producer-teases-multiple-worlds-and-povs-to-explain-geralt-recast/

I.....really don't think they should go there.

Umh so witcher lore experts here ? What is it.

Is their something that can totally change how someone looks in witcher lore.

With very few exceptions, I think it's always better to just let recasts be recasts. We know this is a work of fiction made by real people, and just accepting that is generally easier than some convoluted in-universe reason for a character suddenly changing appeareance.

Yeah. I am not really a fan of trying to explain a recast in universe, unless you are Doctor Who.

Edited by Bullman on Jul 22nd 2023 at 1:04:33 PM

I don't have a problem with it. Doctor Who made a lot of bank from an in-universe justification.

But the show is so far from the books, the claim it is "lore accurate" seems ridiculous.

Anything I can possibly think of would probably be extremely glaring ("Let's give you Magical Plastic Surgery!"), fall directly on it's face for being absurd, or just drawing needless attention to something that probably won't actually be important at all.

Like, what if Geralt takes a Molotov to the face from a random peasant and we spend an entire episode doing magical reconstructive surgery. It's a big fucking deal! Geralt nearly died!

And then we return right back to the adaptation like nothing ever happened. Because Geralt coming to terms with a massive change to his body and identity isn't part of the actual story.

It's a problem I've seen in other works that make a deal about re-casting a character.

Showrunners... unless it's an actual plot point, just move on. Make a slight tongue in cheek joke if you must, but just barrel through it. The more attention you draw to it, the more awkward it really is.

"Look it's me, I'm here, deal with it. Let's move on."

Pretty much the best way of handling a recast; it works both in the story and as a tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement of the recast.

That article is... confusedly-written. All I could tell for sure is that there is some explanation for it, but "lore-accurate" is... well, not necessarily vague but people just have different defintions of what "lore" is.

I genuinely can't tell what the article is taking as speculation or what has been said by people.

But it does posit things such as POV changes being a potential explanation. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend does such a thing when it recasts a character after their return with the justification that the main character has a completely different view on him so he looks different now. Which can be a thing. Or, going back to the Iron Man 2 example, people have been saying for years that the change in actors there was that the characters did change, and had been WMG that the change in actors means one character got replaced by an imposter. The audience can just tell the difference.

And then we return right back to the adaptation like nothing ever happened. Because Geralt coming to terms with a massive change to his body and identity isn't part of the actual story.

I mean... a new face isn't as huge a difference to his body or identity as it would be in most shows. It's not like characters in the setting even get to see their own face all that much and how the specifically generically handsame features on his face are arranged aren't that much of part of his identity.

... that said, for storytelling it would lead to him having to say "hi, yes, it's me, Geralt" everytime he sees someone again which would be odd. Also it completely kills the ability to do flashbacks. Which this show does sometimes.

Edited by Larkmarn on Jul 24th 2023 at 2:38:29 PM

Ok, maybe identity wasn't the right word and I didn't explain correctly.

Ok, a full season is going to have important events that flow from one to the other to create plot arcs and emotional character arcs, right? Every event should be important in some major or minor and thrust forward the story and characters; maybe they won't be important in the largest picture but they keep the flow and development going.

If you open your season (because this would presumably be either a season opener or closer event), with some event and make a big damn deal about "Geralt went though x and now looks completely different"- If you make a big deal about it, you've now explicitly stated in your plot that "This is important and a big deal in the story". I would expect... you're going to do something with the plot point of "Geralt looks different now".

And that's hard to do because it was never ever part of the original story or character in the first place.

If you're going to make a big deal about it and provide in-universe "lore" explanations for why Geralt looks different, it needs to feel natural to the pacing and development of the story.

If we make a big deal about it providing lore explanations in Episode 1 and then never ever bring it up again as though it was something we were forced to justify... well, you have your word; "forced". And it becomes awkward.

Think about Avengers: Infinity War. Think about how they killed off Gamora. Now, what if the "Alt!Gamora" was played by a completely different actress but acted exactly like "OG!Gamora" and Got G 3 went on as though nothing had changed but occasionally acknowledged "you look different". All of that plot importance on Gamora dying and the Alt version coming in feels like it's purely mechanical justification rather than a developing plot going somewhere. It'd be really awkward, right?

I see it as an all or nothing. Don't focus on it and it might be awkward at first, but it's a matter of adaptation and an on-going work; characters get re-cast. Focus on it at all and it just draws attention to it, makes it more awkward and especially if the explanation is bullshit and falls on it's face, and it's also taking plot weight and screen-time away from an already plotted out story and a very stuffed adaptation that needs to keep a tight pacing schedule.

The only other issue I worry about is the Iron Man 2 example mentioned above; will Hemsworth's Geralt even line up and make sense with Cavill's? Will it be a consistent experience or will they use this as an opportunity to walk back parts of Geralt they didn't like in the first place?

Edited by InkDagger on Jul 24th 2023 at 3:37:15 AM

Not trying to bump, but I also wanted to mention that the final three episodes are out. My housemate was a bit annoyed that the first half had 5 episodes and the second is only three rather than 10 total or a more even split.

The series is on hold now, perhaps indefinitely

https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/tv-shows/2023/07/28/64c3ceffe2704e9d708b459c.html

Prediction. With the horrendous drop that occurred during this season. They'll just quietly cancel it. It won't survive without cavill when he was the only reason people went in.

Well, there's also the fact that the dual strike isn't exactly going to let them film jack shit on their expected film start of September this year. I'm more surprised that the delay's only been announced now instead of much earlier.

It's a shame, really. This series could've been such a blast, had they not shown such an outright contempt for the source material.

I'll never get why people insist on being like that, to be honest - either adapt something as faithfully as possible or make your own thing.

A lot of these people get assigned to the project without much choice in the matter.

And sometimes, you just might not think something is good. Or think it'd be a good idea to focus in on different elements. I mean, look at how different the games are from the books and everyone loves the games.

This especially occurs in a culture where you have a lot of people discussing and sharing "Quips are good writing!" and shoving it in everywhere.

Not saying they aren't source material hating jackasses, but it can be a bit more nuanced than that too...

I don't think it is necessary to be a fan if the work you are adapting.

Edited by Bullman on Aug 2nd 2023 at 7:41:32 AM

You don't need to be an outright fan, but you still need to respect and, more importantly, understand the source material. As the saying goes: don't remove a fence until you understand why it was put there. It applies to writers adapting a preexisting work just as much as an incoming CEO/manager to a workplace.

Edited by ITNW1989 on Aug 2nd 2023 at 6:03:08 AM

I'm also going to second that you don't need to be a fan. Starship Troopers was made with almost pure hatred and loathing for the source material and I think it's all the better for it considering what that source material is.

I think it's all too contextual. You'd naturally gravitate to "Be as faithful as possible" until the thing being adapted is actually terrible or doesn't work with the medium. Another example I'd say is 50 Shades of Grey, of all things. The first one had a team- a good team that actually understood writing and making something watchable. The deviations from the source usually fixed problems with the original.

And then the director and writer were chased off the project by the book's writer and they hired yes-men to finish the final two movies which are significantly worse.

It comes in degrees. Respect the original material when it's good enough as is. Deviation is understandable for aspects that don't age well. Original material , or Filler, should be done when needed for pacing out canon material, etc.

Being a fan can help or hinter, just like not being a fan can let you make something better out of the material you have or only squander what's already good.

The thing is, different writers may disagree on which works or parts of works are good and which are bad.

One writer might see a production of Macbeth, in particular the resolution to the prophecy regarding "none of woman born", and think the twist masterful. Another might find it disappointing and write their own version of the prophecy.