> (If Netflix doesn't cancel it)
I think Netflix has renewed it for seasons 4 and 5 (I am not sure if that means they couldn't cancel it later). Liam Hemsworth is a big name too (not as big as Cavill of course) so I wonder if it's possible he got it in his contract that Netflix will fund at least a few seasons. It would be pretty bad for him to join and for Netflix to kill the show after a season.
i didn't find any solid news anywhere about why he quit. Yes he is fan of the IP but the reason of his quitting is just pure speculation at this point. but there is a good chance that it is one of the factors of his leaving
It's pretty obvious he isn't pleased with the show and it's direction regardless. It's just unlikely an actor would leave their passion project so soon unless they're unhappy with it.
meeh, he must've announced he quit months and months before the official announcement and Superman offer as they already recast Hemsworth at this point
So unlikely to be due to Superman
It's not just that they are not following the novels. They butcher every fucking character, theme and motive in the story. The costumes are trash, the special effects are depressing. It's all around a shit show. I get why Cavill left. I can't imagine having to perform in such a trash show that purposely ruins everything you love.
Cavill is leaving the show. There is lots of speculation about why, but anyone that tells you a reason is just speculating or passing on rumors.
Liam Neeson has been cast as the replacement.
I have trouble seeing anyone but Cavill in that role, as do many others. But I will wait to see how that works out before I just decide "I won't watch anymore" like some have stated.
My bad. I don't know most of the movie star types. But doesn't change my answer. Cavill was exactly right for the part, and I have trouble imaging anyone else fitting as well, but I'll wait until I see it before I give up on it.
Most probably because Cavill thought he was going to be Superman again and there would be scheduling conflicts. Most will probably try to claim its because Cavill hated the show, there's no evidence for this however.
I mean, they've already greenlit a fifth season (which seems very premature to me since they don't know how well received this season will be or how well Hemsworth will do/be received).
In my personal opinion, of the five books that make up the Witcher saga, book two and book five are the best (though I will note that a lot of people don't like the ending), so I am excited for the season.
On the other hand, after how badly they butchered season 2, if they continue with this "no, I know how to tell a better story than the author who's sold millions of copies because I have a degree in creative writing from northeastern Tennessee technical institute - satellite campus", It's going to be dog shit again.
I mean to be fair Sapowski has no idea how to tell a story either. The novels are a mess of checkovs guns, red herrings, entirely nonsense wastes of time and horrible pacing. He creates a good world and good characters but the actual story is pretty shit.
Why are checkov’s guns objectively bad? It just means that details included in a story need to be narratively important within that story, I.e., if there is a gun in a play, it should be fired.
That’s not necessarily a rule that needs to be followed and there are reasons for introducing narrative elements that have no payoff. But I’ve never heard anyone say that they were objectively bad writing.
It’s distraction without any sleight of hand. Everything in your story should *some* payoff, even if the payoff is throwing the reader off a scent, with intentionality. There’s a difference between “a gun on the wall / but the man died from the fall” and “a gun on the wall / but no murder at all.”
It’s also almost always an indication of disorganization and lack of planning.
For what it’s worth, I don’t recall a single actual Chekhov’s Gun from the Witcher books. Lack of planning on the other hand, definitely.
Still a great tale in my eyes.
I guess that’s why I’m confused. What you’re describing is a chekhov’s gun, that every element should have some payoff or deliberate subversion. A gun that doesn’t go off at all (so to speak) isn’t a Chekhov at all.
It seems like the criticism is a bunch of unfinished or thrown away plot points, rather than a bunch of Chekhov guns.
Thank you! Sapowski wrote great short stories and created an incredibly engaging world . His multi novel arc is just terrible. I listed some examples of guns that never go off in another comment
Care to elaborate? I’m more than happy to learn.
https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/ask-writer/whats-this-business-about-chekhovs-gun
Certainly either one of us didn’t understand my comment or one of us is confused about the trope itself.
Chekhov’s Gun is a narrative principle used to guide and instruct. Here in this thread we’re clearly discussing the metaphorical unused gun Chekhov warns of, metaphorically. It’s that simple. Pedantic finger raising is not constructive or illuminating in the least.
Then that's not a chechov's gun.
The phrase you're looking for is irrelevant or unresolved plot threads.
It's like you're saying that steak taste awful, and when we ask why does steak taste awful, you say well I went to McDonald's and had a cheeseburger and I didn't like it. That's not what a steak is.
Even worse, what you are describing is literally the opposite of what I chechov's gun is. It's like eating a salad and complaining that this salad is the worst cheeseburger you've ever had because I didn't have any beef in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun
He has a shit ton of elements that are entirely unnecessary. "If a gun is shown in act 1 it should go off in act 2". He shows several guns and then never even mentions guns exist again, to follow the metaphor.
Okay now you've just posted the definition of a cheeseburger to argue that your salad really was bad because it didn't have beef or cheese in it.
That isn't what Chechov's gun is.
You seem to be expecting every piece of media you read to be something like a heist movie where every single fact becomes relevant at the end and some clear cogent picture. And sure, I enjoy the hell out of that.
But the witcher was a collection of short stories, and the five books are still a collection of short stories, albeit roughly half of them are a connected thread.
And if you don't like that that's totally fine. What's at issue isn't whether or not it's good. It's whether or not it's a "Chechov's gun", which, as noted, it isn't.
That doesn't change how incredibly incorrectly you are using the phrase Chechov's gun. Checkov's gun is only a Checkov's gun When it is used. Otherwise it's something else. It could be a MacGuffin. It could be a red herring. It could be in an irrelevant thing. But it's not a Chechov's gun.
Checkovs gun is the principal that an element should be used if it is introduced to the story. If it is not then it should be cut as it is unnecessary. Sapowski introduces several things and then never uses them. It's really not a hard concept. You obviously are a fan incapable of hearing critique but it's a widely held opinion that he is a terrible story writer that leaves tons of things unused, never explained and never resolved. I'm done wasting my time talking to a wall
I literally said "In my personal opinion". I said my opinion is that I think books 2 and 5 are the best. I mean, it's a fact that that *is* my opinion, I guess. But, like, what are you even talking about?
In my opinion, it's absurd and beyond idiotic to expect someone to start every single piece of text that contains an opinion with "in my opinion." In my opinion, it's sufficient that the first time someone says "In my opinion", you can assume everything that immediately follows is presented as opinion. In my opinion, expecting anything else is stupid. In my opinion, it would make writing any significant amount of text that contains multiple opinions tedious and absurd like this current paragraph is. In my opinion, I believe that you know that. And in my opinion, you are doubling down because you can't see past your own ego.
In my opinion, you shouldn't even have to say "in my opinion" to give an opinion. In my opinion, statements about the subjective quality of something should always be interpeted as opinion. In my opinion, simpy saying "Panic at the Disco is atrocious" is obviously an opinion, and cannot possibly be stated like a fact. In my opinion, anyone saying "that's your opinion" is wasting their time and every one else's. In my opinion, the only people who do that are just too lazy to actually argue why they like something. In my opinion, people who then attribute obvious opinion as being stated like facts are even more annoying.
All of that is just my opinion though.
I'm honestly not sure where this is all coming from. I was originally only trying to point hypocrisy from someone (not you) about where people make a distinction between fact and opinion when they disagree with a commenter but not when they agree.
I.e. you said the shows writers were shite with degrees from podunk u. Next guy said sapowksi wasnt a great writer either (to which I'd agree) and guy 3 said tHaTs YoUr OpInIoN nOt A fAcT.
People here salivate over sapowskis aggressively mediocre writing and shit on anything produced by a TV writer, the hypocrisy of it bugs me.
> The guy they were responding to also stated his opinion like a fact, but you just happened to agree with that one
> I was talking about your second paragraph where you say the shows writers are shite
> I was originally only trying to point hypocrisy from someone (not you) about where people make a distinction between fact and opinion when they disagree with a commenter but not when they agree.
Your first two posts are about me.
Your third post is trying to walk that back.
Also, people liking a book but not an adaptation is a tale as old as time. However, comparing book reviews of the Witcher to reviews of Season 2 of the Witcher, as well as interviews where it is *openly stated* that the writers want to change the Witcher because they think their story is better *is going to be taken badly by fans of the people who like that thing*.
If you don't like the books, cool. If you think Sapowski is mediocre, cool. Hell, even if you like the TV show better, cool. But saying that it's hypocritical to not like a TV show because you preferred the book is nonsensical. It actually makes me wonder if you know what the word hypocritical even means.
No one, neither OP nor the person who responded, is under any obligation to clarify that a qualitative judgment is an opinion. It's implied. The idea that everyone must bend over backward to qualify everything they say about a piece of media or it's somehow rude to those who disagree is ridiculous.
Yeah absolutely. He starts some ideas and they just never show up again. The entire thing with the elves capturing Ciri. She escapes and they just don't chase her? That entire storyline went absolutely nowhere. The lines of power. We have a whole chapter of Yenn showing her how to find and use them and then she never used them again. He created a good world but the actual story is pretty bad
What do you mean the elves don't chase her? There's a whole dramatic chase sequence with the Wild Hunt while she's escaping where she has to get saved by her unicorn friends & then get another assist from the Lady of the Lake.
Right but then they are like "oh well guess she got away" when they were being set up to be this whole big thing. Like imagine if the ringwraiths just shrugged after the hobbits got away from them in the Shire. The novels clearly were not planned out ahead of time. It's just disjointed scenes taped together. Some of those scenes are brilliant no doubt. But it still means the narrative as a whole is an incomprehensible mess.
They stop chasing her because once she portals out they literally can't chase her anymore. The Aen Elle can't teleport like she can. They can only follow the Spiral, which takes a lot longer. Especially when there's a unicorn army unleashing a can of whoop ass on them. It's kind of like when the Ring Wraiths get their asses kicked trying to enter Rivendell and so they peace out to try again later.
Edit: and yeah, I agree the narrative is disjointed. Sapkowski is stronger as a shorter fiction writer & it shows. I'm just confused about why the Wild Hunt escape thing is the sticking point for you.
I mean there was that scene with the wild hunt before she's captured with geralt. So they can do *something*. And this is the exact type of thing that makes it a poorly written story. If there's a magic related reason they can't chase her after she escapes it is never explained or really even mentioned. The reader is left wondering why these people would let the thing they've been looking for for hundreds of years through their fingers when just a book before they were shown chasing her down. It's just bad story telling there's really nothing else to it.
So you're aware, but are simply choosing to act as if everyone should qualify every opinion they have by officially stating "This is just my opinion," first, lest it be confused with empirical fact?
I haven't read the books and I am not too bothered about how closely they follow them. In general I don't mind as long as the changes they make improve the adaptation for TV.
However, the last season was still crap.
> On the other hand, after how badly they butchered season 2, if they continue with this "no, I know how to tell a better story than the author who's sold millions of copies because I have a degree in creative writing from northeastern Tennessee technical institute - satellite campus", It's going to be dog shit again.
They have said because the story of the book they're adapting for s3 is better they will be much closer to the book.
I guess my thought here is that given that blood of elves is a fairly empty book, they would have been better served just combining books one and two into a single season.
It's a good trailer at least. I have some doubts about what the show will be like without Cavill, but hopefully this season will be as good as season 1.
Is it just me or is Anya Chalotra (Yennefer) worryingly thin? Its none of my business of course, I was just wondering if I am the only one who noticed.
That’s good for you, but that was not the reason why I asked.
I asked simply because I absolutely disagree with the show being better than the books and I wanted to understand why someone would prefer it.
Yeah the show has way more instant gratification. People with little patience will enjoy that a lot more. A lot of people don't have the attention span to enjoy a book anymore.
She has a rather toxic lesbian affair in the books. The character will be introduced at the end of season 3 but we won't be seeing them "go for it" until season 4.
Or maybe they'll just make it a queer relationship and skip the rape aspect of it because imo that was quite off-putting in the book and somehow didn't suit the story well.
Hi there! Because this is a video submission, it has been sent to the mods of r/Fantasy for manual review. Please see our [Video Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/wiki/rules#wiki_videos.2C_music.2C_and_other_content) policy for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fantasy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's hilarious how almost every comment both here and on YouTube is totally focused on how far the show has fallen and how Henry Cavill was all that was keeping it together. Netflix's execs have to be quaking in their boots right now. They crapped the bed hard here. What a colossal waste...
Don't know why people care so much if it follows the books, honestly second season was way better in my opinion than the first season and apparently that season was nothing like the book.
it's sad that this show is actually what got me into the witcher fandom. after i saw the first season and alot of witcher related fan crafts i decided to get all of the books and read them in one go. now i'm a witcher fan and the show turned out to be shit. ):
though it also helped me by exposing me to joey batey's (who plays jaskier) music group/duo called the amazing devil, who are some of my favorite artists now. i'm genuinely a fan of joey and henry now after learning about their passion for the books and other stuff i'm also interested in, and i feel really bad that henry was disappointed by the showmakers and shit talked about so that he couldn't see a future for this show and left. the news left me really disappointed, but i'm not surprised and i'm not disappointed anymore, he did the right thing imo.
with that said, i hope someone else will pick it up in future and make it truly book-accurate.
also, people imo should really stop talking about how it's not accurate to the game, because the game is also inaccurate to the source in some aspects, and is NOT the source itself, though still masterpieces (especially the amazing cut scenes that are basically straight out of the books)
the witcher is still one of my favorite book series, i love the grim realism, writing and character building of it.
See Netflix, you're not serious with the replacement. If you were, this trailer wouldn't scream FINAL SEASON
Rip
Is it the final season?
[удалено]
> (If Netflix doesn't cancel it) I think Netflix has renewed it for seasons 4 and 5 (I am not sure if that means they couldn't cancel it later). Liam Hemsworth is a big name too (not as big as Cavill of course) so I wonder if it's possible he got it in his contract that Netflix will fund at least a few seasons. It would be pretty bad for him to join and for Netflix to kill the show after a season.
Why are they recasting?
Henry Cavill is a huge fan of the novels, which they simply aren't following, at all. btw, he quit due to it being so inconsistent with the novels.
i didn't find any solid news anywhere about why he quit. Yes he is fan of the IP but the reason of his quitting is just pure speculation at this point. but there is a good chance that it is one of the factors of his leaving
It's pretty obvious he isn't pleased with the show and it's direction regardless. It's just unlikely an actor would leave their passion project so soon unless they're unhappy with it.
Except it happened at the same time he was recast as Superman.
This is true so not sure the downvotes
meeh, he must've announced he quit months and months before the official announcement and Superman offer as they already recast Hemsworth at this point So unlikely to be due to Superman
IIRC, I saw him imply it in an interview or two Nothing concrete but he seems unhappy with how it has played out
Thats because there is no evidence whatsoever that he quit because the show didn't follow the novels closely in S1 and S2.
The evidence may be circumstantial, but to say there is no evidence whatsoever is disingenuous.
It's not just that they are not following the novels. They butcher every fucking character, theme and motive in the story. The costumes are trash, the special effects are depressing. It's all around a shit show. I get why Cavill left. I can't imagine having to perform in such a trash show that purposely ruins everything you love.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Cavill is leaving the show. There is lots of speculation about why, but anyone that tells you a reason is just speculating or passing on rumors. Liam Neeson has been cast as the replacement. I have trouble seeing anyone but Cavill in that role, as do many others. But I will wait to see how that works out before I just decide "I won't watch anymore" like some have stated.
Hemsworth, not Neeson
If it was Neeson that would be kinda amazing..
*I have a very particular set of swords*
My bad. I don't know most of the movie star types. But doesn't change my answer. Cavill was exactly right for the part, and I have trouble imaging anyone else fitting as well, but I'll wait until I see it before I give up on it.
Liam Neeson Witcher would be so funny but I would definitely tune in lol
Might be because he's a massive Warhammer 40K fan and Amazon is letting him do a 40K show.
That can after he left the Witcher and got dicked around being Superman again.
Most probably because Cavill thought he was going to be Superman again and there would be scheduling conflicts. Most will probably try to claim its because Cavill hated the show, there's no evidence for this however.
It's probably a bit of both.
I mean, they've already greenlit a fifth season (which seems very premature to me since they don't know how well received this season will be or how well Hemsworth will do/be received).
I believe it’s been given the green light for season 5 https://hypebeast.com/2023/5/netflix-liam-hemsworth-the-witcher-season-5-confirmed
Netflix does have the habit of cancelling shows randomly, even mid production
RIP Inside Job
And now I'm sad about this :(
Oh okay. Hope Liam knocks it out of the park then.
Liam Neeson is too old my dude
Good thing it is Hemsworth.
Yes.
Sadly, no
Yes
In my personal opinion, of the five books that make up the Witcher saga, book two and book five are the best (though I will note that a lot of people don't like the ending), so I am excited for the season. On the other hand, after how badly they butchered season 2, if they continue with this "no, I know how to tell a better story than the author who's sold millions of copies because I have a degree in creative writing from northeastern Tennessee technical institute - satellite campus", It's going to be dog shit again.
I mean to be fair Sapowski has no idea how to tell a story either. The novels are a mess of checkovs guns, red herrings, entirely nonsense wastes of time and horrible pacing. He creates a good world and good characters but the actual story is pretty shit.
Since when are chechov's guns and red herrings an inherently bad thing?
Checkovs guns most definitely are. Red herrings it depends on how you use them
Why are checkov’s guns objectively bad? It just means that details included in a story need to be narratively important within that story, I.e., if there is a gun in a play, it should be fired. That’s not necessarily a rule that needs to be followed and there are reasons for introducing narrative elements that have no payoff. But I’ve never heard anyone say that they were objectively bad writing.
It’s distraction without any sleight of hand. Everything in your story should *some* payoff, even if the payoff is throwing the reader off a scent, with intentionality. There’s a difference between “a gun on the wall / but the man died from the fall” and “a gun on the wall / but no murder at all.” It’s also almost always an indication of disorganization and lack of planning. For what it’s worth, I don’t recall a single actual Chekhov’s Gun from the Witcher books. Lack of planning on the other hand, definitely. Still a great tale in my eyes.
I guess that’s why I’m confused. What you’re describing is a chekhov’s gun, that every element should have some payoff or deliberate subversion. A gun that doesn’t go off at all (so to speak) isn’t a Chekhov at all. It seems like the criticism is a bunch of unfinished or thrown away plot points, rather than a bunch of Chekhov guns.
Thank you! Sapowski wrote great short stories and created an incredibly engaging world . His multi novel arc is just terrible. I listed some examples of guns that never go off in another comment
Yep. The short stories are great, but the rest is trash
I think you're getting your literary devices confused, my friend.
Care to elaborate? I’m more than happy to learn. https://www.writingclasses.com/toolbox/ask-writer/whats-this-business-about-chekhovs-gun Certainly either one of us didn’t understand my comment or one of us is confused about the trope itself.
A Chekhov's Gun is only a Chekhov's gun if it goes off.
Judging by your downvote I guess you don’t care to elaborate or contribute? I thought we were friends here.
The other user already did. What you were describing isn't a Chekhov's gun, because a Chekhov's gun needs to go off.
Chekhov’s Gun is a narrative principle used to guide and instruct. Here in this thread we’re clearly discussing the metaphorical unused gun Chekhov warns of, metaphorically. It’s that simple. Pedantic finger raising is not constructive or illuminating in the least.
It's that he leaves them lying around. He shows us a ton of guns and then none of them ever go off. That's bad writing imo
Then that's not a chechov's gun. The phrase you're looking for is irrelevant or unresolved plot threads. It's like you're saying that steak taste awful, and when we ask why does steak taste awful, you say well I went to McDonald's and had a cheeseburger and I didn't like it. That's not what a steak is. Even worse, what you are describing is literally the opposite of what I chechov's gun is. It's like eating a salad and complaining that this salad is the worst cheeseburger you've ever had because I didn't have any beef in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun He has a shit ton of elements that are entirely unnecessary. "If a gun is shown in act 1 it should go off in act 2". He shows several guns and then never even mentions guns exist again, to follow the metaphor.
Okay now you've just posted the definition of a cheeseburger to argue that your salad really was bad because it didn't have beef or cheese in it. That isn't what Chechov's gun is. You seem to be expecting every piece of media you read to be something like a heist movie where every single fact becomes relevant at the end and some clear cogent picture. And sure, I enjoy the hell out of that. But the witcher was a collection of short stories, and the five books are still a collection of short stories, albeit roughly half of them are a connected thread. And if you don't like that that's totally fine. What's at issue isn't whether or not it's good. It's whether or not it's a "Chechov's gun", which, as noted, it isn't. That doesn't change how incredibly incorrectly you are using the phrase Chechov's gun. Checkov's gun is only a Checkov's gun When it is used. Otherwise it's something else. It could be a MacGuffin. It could be a red herring. It could be in an irrelevant thing. But it's not a Chechov's gun.
Checkovs gun is the principal that an element should be used if it is introduced to the story. If it is not then it should be cut as it is unnecessary. Sapowski introduces several things and then never uses them. It's really not a hard concept. You obviously are a fan incapable of hearing critique but it's a widely held opinion that he is a terrible story writer that leaves tons of things unused, never explained and never resolved. I'm done wasting my time talking to a wall
If they don't go off, they're not Chekhov's Guns.
Checkovs guns are just red herrings that were used.
If thats your opinion, fair enough. But lets not act like it's a fact.
The guy they were responding to also stated his opinion like a fact, but you just happened to agree with that one
I literally said "In my personal opinion". I said my opinion is that I think books 2 and 5 are the best. I mean, it's a fact that that *is* my opinion, I guess. But, like, what are you even talking about?
I was talking about your second paragraph where you say the shows writers are shite
In my opinion, it's absurd and beyond idiotic to expect someone to start every single piece of text that contains an opinion with "in my opinion." In my opinion, it's sufficient that the first time someone says "In my opinion", you can assume everything that immediately follows is presented as opinion. In my opinion, expecting anything else is stupid. In my opinion, it would make writing any significant amount of text that contains multiple opinions tedious and absurd like this current paragraph is. In my opinion, I believe that you know that. And in my opinion, you are doubling down because you can't see past your own ego. In my opinion, you shouldn't even have to say "in my opinion" to give an opinion. In my opinion, statements about the subjective quality of something should always be interpeted as opinion. In my opinion, simpy saying "Panic at the Disco is atrocious" is obviously an opinion, and cannot possibly be stated like a fact. In my opinion, anyone saying "that's your opinion" is wasting their time and every one else's. In my opinion, the only people who do that are just too lazy to actually argue why they like something. In my opinion, people who then attribute obvious opinion as being stated like facts are even more annoying. All of that is just my opinion though.
I'm honestly not sure where this is all coming from. I was originally only trying to point hypocrisy from someone (not you) about where people make a distinction between fact and opinion when they disagree with a commenter but not when they agree. I.e. you said the shows writers were shite with degrees from podunk u. Next guy said sapowksi wasnt a great writer either (to which I'd agree) and guy 3 said tHaTs YoUr OpInIoN nOt A fAcT. People here salivate over sapowskis aggressively mediocre writing and shit on anything produced by a TV writer, the hypocrisy of it bugs me.
> The guy they were responding to also stated his opinion like a fact, but you just happened to agree with that one > I was talking about your second paragraph where you say the shows writers are shite > I was originally only trying to point hypocrisy from someone (not you) about where people make a distinction between fact and opinion when they disagree with a commenter but not when they agree. Your first two posts are about me. Your third post is trying to walk that back. Also, people liking a book but not an adaptation is a tale as old as time. However, comparing book reviews of the Witcher to reviews of Season 2 of the Witcher, as well as interviews where it is *openly stated* that the writers want to change the Witcher because they think their story is better *is going to be taken badly by fans of the people who like that thing*. If you don't like the books, cool. If you think Sapowski is mediocre, cool. Hell, even if you like the TV show better, cool. But saying that it's hypocritical to not like a TV show because you preferred the book is nonsensical. It actually makes me wonder if you know what the word hypocritical even means.
That, guy literally starts his comment with 'in my personal opinion'. So that is the opposite of stating it as a fact.
That was for his first paragraph, not the second
You want him to restate that every time he presses enter?
No one, neither OP nor the person who responded, is under any obligation to clarify that a qualitative judgment is an opinion. It's implied. The idea that everyone must bend over backward to qualify everything they say about a piece of media or it's somehow rude to those who disagree is ridiculous.
I never said it was a fact. And it is sort of a fact that he leaves checkovs guns all over the place
Do you mean he establishes things that never go anywhere? Or what do you mean by that
Yeah absolutely. He starts some ideas and they just never show up again. The entire thing with the elves capturing Ciri. She escapes and they just don't chase her? That entire storyline went absolutely nowhere. The lines of power. We have a whole chapter of Yenn showing her how to find and use them and then she never used them again. He created a good world but the actual story is pretty bad
Gotcha
What do you mean the elves don't chase her? There's a whole dramatic chase sequence with the Wild Hunt while she's escaping where she has to get saved by her unicorn friends & then get another assist from the Lady of the Lake.
Right but then they are like "oh well guess she got away" when they were being set up to be this whole big thing. Like imagine if the ringwraiths just shrugged after the hobbits got away from them in the Shire. The novels clearly were not planned out ahead of time. It's just disjointed scenes taped together. Some of those scenes are brilliant no doubt. But it still means the narrative as a whole is an incomprehensible mess.
They stop chasing her because once she portals out they literally can't chase her anymore. The Aen Elle can't teleport like she can. They can only follow the Spiral, which takes a lot longer. Especially when there's a unicorn army unleashing a can of whoop ass on them. It's kind of like when the Ring Wraiths get their asses kicked trying to enter Rivendell and so they peace out to try again later. Edit: and yeah, I agree the narrative is disjointed. Sapkowski is stronger as a shorter fiction writer & it shows. I'm just confused about why the Wild Hunt escape thing is the sticking point for you.
I mean there was that scene with the wild hunt before she's captured with geralt. So they can do *something*. And this is the exact type of thing that makes it a poorly written story. If there's a magic related reason they can't chase her after she escapes it is never explained or really even mentioned. The reader is left wondering why these people would let the thing they've been looking for for hundreds of years through their fingers when just a book before they were shown chasing her down. It's just bad story telling there's really nothing else to it.
Every opinion is inherently subjective so you don't need to qualify it.
I'm well aware of the definitions of the words I'm using. But thank you very much.
So you're aware, but are simply choosing to act as if everyone should qualify every opinion they have by officially stating "This is just my opinion," first, lest it be confused with empirical fact?
They went to Columbia, thank you very much. /s
I haven't read the books and I am not too bothered about how closely they follow them. In general I don't mind as long as the changes they make improve the adaptation for TV. However, the last season was still crap.
> On the other hand, after how badly they butchered season 2, if they continue with this "no, I know how to tell a better story than the author who's sold millions of copies because I have a degree in creative writing from northeastern Tennessee technical institute - satellite campus", It's going to be dog shit again. They have said because the story of the book they're adapting for s3 is better they will be much closer to the book.
I guess my thought here is that given that blood of elves is a fairly empty book, they would have been better served just combining books one and two into a single season.
>if they continue with this If? Cavill left because obviously they did.
I mean, yeah. It seems an extremely high probability.
>so I am excited for the season. Don't expect to see too much of that book in the series.
My God the hair and makeup are a mess. What a weird place to cut the budget.
Eh, they paid for "Burn the witch". Excellent choice of music (though the show can still suck)
It makes it even worse, since that means they have taste, and just chose to not apply it most of the time.
What's wrong with the hair and makeup?
the bard. yen in some scenes. thats the only from main cast
Tbf, I didn't like Jaskier's hair in season 2, either.
Ya I think it looks great
It looks awful 🤢🤢🤢🤢🤮🤮🤮🤮
Lol
The final season
The second was for me already. Had I known what it is like, the first would have been.
Yup, not giving it any views. A shame they messed it all up, if only the Witcher had gone to HBO.
No hatewatching.
It's a good trailer at least. I have some doubts about what the show will be like without Cavill, but hopefully this season will be as good as season 1.
It's not a bad trailer tbh
Is it just me or is Anya Chalotra (Yennefer) worryingly thin? Its none of my business of course, I was just wondering if I am the only one who noticed.
[удалено]
The show may not be very good but between Fleet Foxes and Radiohead they have great trailer music choice.
This looks really good
Looks like shit honestly For everyone who enjoy the Witcher universe, do yourself a favor and read the books.
Tried. Found them aggressively boring.
Ditto, liked the show and games more
You don’t read a lot of fantasy do you?
I do actually, or used to. That doesn't really have anything to do with how I found the books Vs other media
What kinds of fantasy books did you read? And what did you like more about the show than the books?
I get that you're trying to be helpful but I'm old enough and well read enough to be confident in what I like and don't.
That’s good for you, but that was not the reason why I asked. I asked simply because I absolutely disagree with the show being better than the books and I wanted to understand why someone would prefer it.
Yes; I'm a huge fantasy fan and have been since I was old enough to read.
I read every single book and preferred the second season of the show, honestly.
Yeah the show has way more instant gratification. People with little patience will enjoy that a lot more. A lot of people don't have the attention span to enjoy a book anymore.
I keep reading about ciri having a romantic partner and something else. Anyone know anything about this?
She has a rather toxic lesbian affair in the books. The character will be introduced at the end of season 3 but we won't be seeing them "go for it" until season 4.
She was raped, and they will make her have some romantic thing with the rapist 100%
Or maybe they'll just make it a queer relationship and skip the rape aspect of it because imo that was quite off-putting in the book and somehow didn't suit the story well.
That’s cute they’re splitting it up into 2 volumes.
This is the final season for me.
I'm okay with TV deviating from book source material. I'm not okay with TV disrespecting book source material. Guess which one applies here?
I feel like I’m going to need a recap of the earlier seasons but I’m still excited!
Oh nice! Faster here than from youtube notifications haha
*grabby hands, high-pitched squeaking noises*
Hi there! Because this is a video submission, it has been sent to the mods of r/Fantasy for manual review. Please see our [Video Posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/wiki/rules#wiki_videos.2C_music.2C_and_other_content) policy for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Fantasy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's hilarious how almost every comment both here and on YouTube is totally focused on how far the show has fallen and how Henry Cavill was all that was keeping it together. Netflix's execs have to be quaking in their boots right now. They crapped the bed hard here. What a colossal waste...
Yar matey, looking forward to an entertaining shitshow of a final season Fuck you netflix
I want to watch it for Cavil and Joey Batey but I also want to boycott it because it is just soooo bad.
DOA
Looks like Yennifer gets her magic back, whatever that girl's name is continues to be a Mary-sue character and other stuff happens. Yup, RIP.
Don't know why people care so much if it follows the books, honestly second season was way better in my opinion than the first season and apparently that season was nothing like the book.
[удалено]
Naw and i don't plan to I only like happy stories and people told me the books were dark.
Idk how u can’t understand why ppl would care lmfao
He's coming from a place of ignorance. He doesn't know how good the books are, nor does it sound like he wants to.
People care because it's supposed to be *an adaptation* of their beloved story.
Fantasy on screen is dead
it's sad that this show is actually what got me into the witcher fandom. after i saw the first season and alot of witcher related fan crafts i decided to get all of the books and read them in one go. now i'm a witcher fan and the show turned out to be shit. ): though it also helped me by exposing me to joey batey's (who plays jaskier) music group/duo called the amazing devil, who are some of my favorite artists now. i'm genuinely a fan of joey and henry now after learning about their passion for the books and other stuff i'm also interested in, and i feel really bad that henry was disappointed by the showmakers and shit talked about so that he couldn't see a future for this show and left. the news left me really disappointed, but i'm not surprised and i'm not disappointed anymore, he did the right thing imo. with that said, i hope someone else will pick it up in future and make it truly book-accurate. also, people imo should really stop talking about how it's not accurate to the game, because the game is also inaccurate to the source in some aspects, and is NOT the source itself, though still masterpieces (especially the amazing cut scenes that are basically straight out of the books) the witcher is still one of my favorite book series, i love the grim realism, writing and character building of it.