Adaptations are difficult. It takes ingenuity and attention to detail to translate hundreds of pages of thorough exposition and worldbuilding into a compelling visual spectacle. Whenever a novel becomes a film or a TV series, artistic minds are set on a collision course. That collision of ideas results in different visions of the same characters, topics, and themes; as a result, not all viewers accept the adaptation, however good it may be on its own merits. Netflix’s new Witcher series is no exception to this rule. Like all other television adaptations, the series deviates from the books. In the case of The Witcher, however, many of these changes, in my opinion, are largely unnecessary and do not make for a coherent story.
Like many longtime Witcher fans, I grew up on Andrzej Sapkowski’s novels. Admittedly, trying to distance myself from the characters I’ve grown attached to doesn’t come easily, but I tried to remain objective and open while waiting for the adaptation to finally arrive. By the time the show premiered in late December, I was curious to see how the showrunner and writers would interpret the novels, and was willing to accept the likely omission of the various Slavic elements and themes prominent in the books, as well as the clever literary and linguistic references and wordplay on the part of the author that would inevitably be lost in translation. Despite my scepticism about certain casting choices, I do not mind my opinions being challenged and tested—after all, a successful adaptation offers a unique glance into someone else’s mind. It allows you to access a different vision of the material you think you know and understand. In the case of The Witcher, however, the show challenged and altered the internal logic of the Witcher’s world while not adding great value to the story. As a result, the overall lack of context turns the show into a generic fantasy while ignoring the books’ unique elements and the subtle, but crucial, aspects of Sapkowski’s worldbuilding that set the Witcher saga apart in the first place.
[Spoilers for Season 1 of The Witcher and some discussion of the source material follow.]
Changes in Context
From the point of view of a reader already familiar with the books, most of the changes introduced in the show seem calculated to confuse the audience rather than provide additional context to the story. For example, in Aretuza (the prestigious equivalent of an Oxford University for mages), ascended sorceresses are shown to use their failed students as magical fuel. The show’s shocking revelation does not make much sense in the world of the novels, where even Aretuza drop-outs end up with fine careers and secure, comfortable lives. The forced drama surrounding this point seems absurd once we discover how rare and precious magically gifted individuals are—in the novels, even moderately talented mages are highly valued, and no shrewd person in their sane mind would resort to such wastefulness even to power up the magical core of the school. This new detail does not enrich the canon; it only serves to provide shock value at the expense of consistent worldbuilding.
Buy the Book
Harrow the Ninth
Similarly, in ostensibly expanding upon the story of Fringilla Vigo, the show effectively diminishes her character instead. In the books, Fringilla, a Nilfgaardian mage, never studied in Aretuza. She never became a fanatical follower of Emperor Emhyr. She was a shrewd, clever politician, like many sorcerers, carefully observing and attending to the interests of her colleagues and her family. In the series, however, her motivation is vague at best: Why is she a religious fanatic? Why is she suddenly an adept of dark magic, while others are not? Following the logic of the show, one has trouble figuring out why Fringilla was bitter over Yennefer taking her promised position at the Aedirnian court.
Aedirn is a fine Northern backwater, but the progressive and turbulent Nilfgaardian Empire should have been a much greater prize for any ambitious sorceress. However, the magnificent Yennefer, who never shies away from a challenge and yearns to play a game of thrones, resents this assignment in the show. Given Yennefer’s clear and intense ambition, this choice is perplexing at best. Perhaps Yennefer opts for Aedirn because Nilfgaard in the show is presented as a generic Evil Empire that does nothing but pillage, rape, and oppress. The show strays away from the nuanced depiction of the political conflicts in the books in favour of a stark black and white palette. This type of change can still make for a good story if and when the setting allows it. This particular setting, however, is rather grim and far from the good-versus-evil morality found in classic high fantasy.
A Challenging Setting
The show diverges from the worldbuilding of the books but does not offer an original and consistent setting in return. Viewers are left with the Good Northern Kingdoms and the Evil Empire to the south. One can certainly argue that, in the books, Nilfgaard is clearly no beacon of democracy in the medieval-ish crapsack world of the Witcher. But it should also be noted that the Northerners do not fare much better with their own rulers. While Sapkowski is more of a world-conjurer than a world-builder, he consistently conveys the complex political and cultural conflicts of the Continent clearly enough for his readers to understand the differences between the fractions. Mysteries and alliances unravel slowly, making you question the views of the characters and their loyalties.
Simplifying the setting somewhat in adapting the series may have been viewed as a necessity, but in removing much of the history and politics, we’re left with very little sense of this world and no explanation for its tensions and intrigues. In the show, the political, social, or cultural differences between Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms are never explained or meaningfully addressed. The viewers do not know why they are at war. We can only guess if the conflict is about religion, wealth, natural resources, racist or/and nationalist ideologies. In the show, the states on the Continent are equally diverse, speak the same language (which is not the case in the novels), their mages even attend the same schools, and there is no racism or nationalism among the humans. Taken separately, these changes to the original setting do not make for an incoherent story, but together they create a background that seems undefined, unbelievable, and somewhat arbitrary when a bloody war breaks out.
Altering and Adding Characters
While never addressing the ideological clashes between the states of the Continent, the show also introduces new characters and changes existing ones. If done well, the creation of a new character can expand the original canon and make the fictional world seem more real. Elf Dara, however, arguably adds nothing to Ciri’s storyline. One can imagine the same events unfurling and the same challenges arising, all without Dara’s participation. Dara, who has suffered greatly at the hands of humans, immediately trusts and helps Ciri without a single reason that might help explain such openness. Even the replacement of Mousesack by a doppler is discovered by Ciri after she (and not Dara) challenges him with a round of questions. Dara stays by Ciri’s side, functioning only as a spectator without any purpose of his own; in doing so, he unnecessarily complicates the plot without contributing to the story or our understanding of this world.
In addition to inserting Dara into the story as a new character, the show’s creators also opted to change the framing of some already existing characters. Again, well-thought-out revisions and innovations can work marvels in adapting an existing work. However, changes to prominent characters can send ripples through the plot, stretching and straining it in the process. This is the case with my personal favourite character, the conflicted and terrifying, charismatic and undeniably brilliant mage Vilgefortz. From the genius of the books who is responsible for the victory in the Battle of Sodden Hill, he becomes a useless twerp in the show. During the climactic battle itself, he is bested easily by the non-magical knight Cahir.
Widely considered to be the greatest sorcerer of the Continent, Vilgefortz is supposed to become the main antagonist of the story that unfolds in the books. He is the mage who defeats Geralt in combat, thereby besting the greatest swordsmen of the North, who also happens to be a supernaturally strong Witcher. He possesses a dark, twisted mind, does unspeakable things, commits atrocities, occasionally shows flashes of reason, carries heavy Freudian baggage and severe PTSD in tow, and always remains brilliant. The show’s version of Vilgefortz does not remotely measure up to this formidable image; in this adaptation, he is no threat to anyone. It is Yennefer, by contrast, who triumphs in battle and seems poised to take over the world.
While the actress’s performance deserves as much praise as that of Geralt and Jaskier, the presentation of Yennefer in the show creates further inconsistencies. In the books, Yennefer is one of the rare female examples of a Byronic Hero—scornful towards society, attractive, brilliant, occasionally unbearable, tormented, misunderstood, and proud. Her backstory is revealed in bits and pieces, allowing her character to shine, creating a nuanced image of a complicated person. The novels do not justify her perplexing and often polarizing actions by explaining them in light of her “unhappy childhood.” She is a mystery. She is enigmatic. She has always been so, even before her transformation. Her ascendancy has only brought these qualities to the fore. Compared to this characterization in the books, her introduction in the show lacks subtlety.
The Yennefer of the books is flawed—physically, psychologically, and magically. While she is talented as a sorceress, her magical powers are not limitless. She can stand her ground in combat, but she is no great swordswoman. In the show, however, she alone is capable of destroying half the Nilfgaardian army, cutting mercenaries into sushi, wielding two swords like a martial artist. With such seemingly limitless powers, it is difficult to weave any sense of Yennefer’s weaknesses into the plot. Showing her facing off against her opponents almost seems pointless—she is already a conduit of pure chaos, the most of powerful and talented. This empowerment of Yennefer does a disservice to the plot rather than improving on the original; it takes away the opportunity for important character growth and flattens out her complexities.
Similarly, the complicated and conflicted knight Cahir is reduced to a generic bloodthirsty villain in the show for no obvious reason. Had we only seen him through Ciri’s eyes, this depiction would have been logical. However, we meet him several times in the course of the series, where he continues to act as an irrational, fanatical monster. A noble from a prominent family, Cahir in the novels is bound by honour, lives by a strict code, and is loyal to his people; he is in many ways a tragic figure, torn between conflicting loyalties. Based on the books, Cahir should play a prominent role in future events, but it seems impossible to change a character this much without changing the plot, as well
Magic in the World of The Witcher
Beyond changing the characters, the writers have also attempted to clarify the magic system of the Witcher series. It is an interesting goal, and worth the effort—the result, however, is less than logical. In one memorable scene, for example, Fringilla’s hand withers away the first time she uses a spell for telekinesis. Ignoring the ‘soft magic’ presented in the books, the show promises the viewers a ‘hard magic’ system akin to that of Patrick Rothfuss’ Kingkiller Chronicle, with its detailed explanations of how sympathy works. The show, however, never delivers on that promise. A couple of episodes later, we see sorcerers casting fireballs, teleporting on a whim, growing magical mushrooms, and hypnotizing crowds. And the greatest cost for this magic-fest is…an occasional nosebleed. The only ones who seem to pay the price are the mages from the Evil Empire of Nilfgaard.
The scene with Nilfgaardian mages sacrificing their lifeforce seems lifted straight from Brandon Sanderson’s Elantris, not from the Witcher Series. As in Elantris, where Fjorden is a religious dictatorship under the leadership of the Wyrn, the show version of Nilfgaard is depicted as a state of religious fanatics willing to give their lives to enhance the war effort of their frenzied leader, the White Flame. Again, rare and precious mages are used as fossil fuel. How many does the Evil Empire have to spare? There must be thousands, at least, if they cost less and are more expendable than a catapult.
The Target Audience
Attempting to satisfy both hardcore fans and casual viewers is a daunting task. In its first season, the show seems to swing between the two audiences, while never finding its own path. For viewers who are not familiar with the Witcher books, the show’s structure and worldbuilding is messy at best. Jumbled timelines offer no explanations and no insights into the world of the Continent. Who is sacking Cintra? Why are Nilfgaardians evil? How many timelines are there? Why is Queen Calanthe dead in one scene but alive and kicking in the next one?
For long-term Witcher fans like myself, many of the changes that have been made seem pointless. They make for a problematic story, where the facts do not add up. It is hard to believe the show’s version of Vilgefortz is meant to be seen as a compelling, multi-layered antagonist. Nilfgaard as a standard, straightforward evil empire is neither interesting, nor original. Fringilla studying in Aretuza makes no sense if she is a Nilfgaardian mage. The show presents a very different vision than the one brought to life in Sapkowski’s books. It is not a bad show. It certainly has potential. But it is not a great adaptation.
That said, the show still manages to nail certain aspects of the books perfectly: The banter between Geralt and Jaskier is flawless, and the music enhances the magical atmosphere of the stories. Geralt’s visions of Renfri add so much depth to his character, and Renfri herself is a perfect choice (both in terms of character and casting) that adds to a brilliant storyline. Also, Stregobor’s role in the series has been expanded, and, in the end, the viewers are given a character who we can all love to hate.
However, the subtlety of the books is missing from the show. It lacks logically consistent worldbuilding, breaks its own magical rules, and instead of presenting a world of complex political power plays and shifting alliances, it resorts to painting the sides in simplistic black and white. The jumbled storylines often leave you wondering what is happening on screen, and when. This particular creative choice is especially frustrating since no plot twists depend on the split timelines (as they generally do in HBO’s Westworld series, for example). Thus, the viewers are left wondering why they must jump decades back and forth, when it serves no larger narrative purpose. While this approach works as storytelling device in the first two books, it does not function well on television. Overall, though, The Witcher is a fine show for those viewers who have an open mind and feel no great attachment to the books. For those of us who looked forward to seeing a new and (maybe even improved) version of the books we love, this first season is not the fantasy masterpiece we might have hoped for. But we’ll see what the second season of the show has in store—and in the meantime, by all means, toss a coin to your Witcher!
Teo Bileta is a social historian who focuses on Central and Eastern Europe in her studies. She also plays strategic boardgames and analyzes genre fiction from a historian’s perspective. She is currently based in Budapest.
I have never read the books and thought I’d give the show a go. Despite some decentralised acting by episode five I stopped because it was a bit boring. Maybe I’ll give the books a shot based on the article.
The only reason I can think of for the timeline jumping is to get to know Ciri throughout the season vs just the last episode, if they’d done it chronologically.
Never read the books, or played the games. Enjoyed it.
Thanks for this article! As someone who has never read the books (I used to think it was just a video game series), I am relieved that even a fan of the books was left confused by the jumbled mess that is the show. I, too, scratched my head at the introductory magic lesson, in which Fringilla’s hand withers (permanently?) but the cost of doing magic is never again addressed or shown in the rest of the season.
I am amused that the “turn the students into eel batteries” wasn’t in the books, because that made no sense to me. The show just presented that scene with no commentary or explanation. The lack of explanation for anything happening during the show is actually my biggest complaint.
Except Cintra is aggressively racist, Aedirn’s king is perfectly willing to have his queen killed for failing to provide sons, Temeria’s Foltest lets a striga eat his subjects for years to the point that miners start to talk rebellion, while down south in ‘Evil Empire’ Nilfgaard, Istredd points out that Emhyr funds non-fanatical archaeological research and has instituted basic welfare programs. I would argue that none of the rulers we see come off particularly well.
Team SmallFolk4Life
To be fair, we do know why Nilfgaard is invading. They’re religious fanatics. Unfortunately it’s not easy to do worldbuilding in 8 hours, so hopefully we see some more explanation of their motives, but at the moment they’re just the enemy. Portraying them as a crusading zealots, literally, is enough. We know their motivations (proselytize and conquer, so religious and political) and we know some minor other issues (they seem to run a paternalistic theocratic/socialist society). How many hundreds of thousands of lives have been snuffed out in our world for exactly this reason, and just as flimsy? The conquest of Cintra seemed very “Sack of Jerusalem” to me – slaughtering every living being while singing religious hymns and all that.
What more do you want? We have no idea what the political motives of any other faction are, either. Calanthe and Cintra are equally bloodthirsty, equally bent on conquest, except in their case it seems to be as much Calanthe getting in a d**k-measuring contest with her male peers as much as any sense of social or religious good.
The series is excellent – I’m on my second go-round now. I didn’t find the timelines all that confusing, and I appreciate the risk they took in going this route. It also makes for a more rewarding second viewing, I’m finding. I absolutely agree with Chieroscuro and andrewrm above – Nilfgaard only appears to be an evil empire at this point because we are not seeing things from their POV, and the north is full of vile rulers. I have a feeling that we’ll get at least some Nilfgaard POV stuff in season 2.
Chieroscuro: Thanks for your comment about the Northern Kingdoms. While the kings of Aedirn, Temeria and even the Lionness of Cintra are not presented as ideal, they are portrayed as complex human beings. And so are their people. Nilfgaardians, on the other hand, are a battalion of faceless orcs. So far, I don’t think anyone can root for Nilfgaard in the show. The books, on the other hand, paint a far more interesting political landscape that keeps you guessing everyone’s intentions.
Having a definite antagonist is not necessarily a bad thing. andrewrm raises a valid point here. Twisted ideology can become a powerful catalyst for violence. It can suffice. However, omitting complex motivations and secret goals in the case of Nilfgaard diminishes the impact of the story on the viewer. But, yes, it’s not easy to do worldbuilding in 8 hours. I think the show may improve greatly in the second season.
Many people already love it. I would like to know, what works for them. After all, my vision is limited and, like everyone else’s, tainted by personal biases.
SPOILERS FOR BLOOD OF ELVES / WITCHER 3
@7 Personally, I’m hoping that in Season 2 we get a follow-through time line for Duny. Starting from when the curse is broken at Pavetta’s betrothal, through the sinking of their ship and his reclaiming the throne of Nilfgaard from the Usurper, ending with his conspiring with Vilgefortz to tee up a Season 3 Thanedd Coup. This would let us see the internal politics of the Empire, reintroduce Fringilla & Cahir from a sympathetic perspective, and serve as an additional window into the politics while Geralt & Yennefer are busy taking turns with Ciri’s education & fighting Reince.
Exactly. While I generally enjoyed the show and expected it to be much worse, I’d agree that almost all the major changes from the books add nothing and often detract from the cohesion and logic of the world or characters.
Though I’d disagree with that second-to-last paragraph: I was honestly most disappointed with the plot changes made to the Renfri story, since Geralt’s motivation for staying in town and fighting Renfri was utterly clear in the original story (as was his resultant reputation as a butcher, since barely anyone who witnessed the slaughter — and there were many, many more witnesses — had any understanding that he was preventing a massacre; that was the whole point of the entire thing taking place on Market Day), and you got a neat little detective story out of it to boot as he figured out what her plan truly had been the whole time.
The changes and weird mysticism in the show only served to confuse what was going on and make both Renfri and Stregobor much less complex and interesting characters (though I loved the performance of the actress who played Renfri and wish they hadn’t wasted her on such a small part). In the show, it especially wasn’t clear why he decided to go back to Blaviken and butt in, since that was almost guaranteed to end in him having to kill her: She hadn’t taken any hostages at that point, and there had been no mention that was a possibility. If he’d just left the entire thing alone and let them work it out between the two of them, Renfri might have survived, and who would care if Stregobor died? In the storyline of the show, that would have been a clearly good result (considering his influence on the Council later).
Oh, and I absolutely hated Dandelion’s song. I could write an article just picking that monstrosity apart in all aspects: lyrics, melody, performance, tone, and appropriate placement in the episode in general. The best one can say about it is that it’s catchy, but so is Justin Bieber’s “Baby.” That doesn’t mean it’s good. The rest of the soundtrack was … fine.
I enjoyed the show more or less when I watched it through the first time (especially Henry Cavill’s Geralt), but it didn’t hold up nearly as well the second time round, especially since by then I’d gone back and reread the first two books. Ah well. I’d honestly expected much worse, and I’ll still watch the second season.
You say Yennefer has no sense of weakness in the show….I wholeheartedly disagree. Her entire character is weakness, and shes using magic to cover it up. All of her actions, to me, came from a place of weakness. She craves true, real, honest connection, but keeps herself at arms length. That’s why she gets so upset about the Third Wish-shell never know for sure of she and Geralt have a real connection, or if it’s the magic.
I’ve never read the books but to me, in the show, Yennefers struggle is very realistic.
One mistake you could fix:
Vilgefortz bested Geralt by magically “boosting” himself and using illusions to fool him.
So he did use his magical skills.
Saskialives: I think we agree on the song. It’s catchy and I’ve been humming it for the last two weeks, but I would not compare it to the brilliant soundtrack from the Witcher games. (it’s, perhaps, a question of preference) And, yes, you are absolutely right about the context! In the first novel, Geralt insists on not covering this exact encounter out of fear for the lives of the elves. If Jaskier lets everyone know, where they are hiding, they will be slaughtered. Thus, Jaskier grudgingly lets this episode slide under his radar.
I understand your point about Renfri, although, I must admit, I appreciate the actress’s performance so much that I am ready to ignore certain inconsistencies. The same goes for the battles. Most of them make no sense from a historian’s perspective (Nilfgaardian infantry attacking heavy cavalry in an open field….yey!), but I’d be nitpicking if I concentrated on these aspects of the show. It’s not the Legend of the Galactic Heroes, after all. It should not be.
Sarah: Thanks for pointing out an interesting issue. I think the show is aiming for a ‘Broken Ace’ version of Yennefer: she is strong on the outside and vulnerable on the inside. What I do not understand, is the need to exaggerate her greatness in a world, where she cannot be the strongest player. She does not need to be a great swordswoman to excel at magic. If Vilgefortz, a man with years of military experience, leads Northern mages into battle, his triumph is logical. However, I can think of no reason for someone to put Yennefer in charge of a complicated military operation. She’s spent decades at courts, not on battlefields. I think making her a stronger mage is a good choice. But making her great at everything, including alchemy and combat, is a mistake.
You raise a good point: juxtaposing physical prowess and psychological vulnerability can pave the way for a great story. But Yennefer faces not only psychological drama. If she is the most talented mage, the brightest military prodigy, the strongest swordswoman in the North, then her tragedy of ‘not having a genuine connection with anyone’ does not seem that dramatic. After all, she has everything else in abundance. Who can threaten a conduit of chaos?
@12 Being the best at everything (though I don’t agree with that characterization) and still being giant mess is an excellent recipe for drama. Especially since she’s futilely trying to undo decisions she made decades ago.
I found the second half of the season to be fairly undemanding TV for better or worse. All of the messy and complicated themes it touched on or messed up in the first half faded away in favor of a lot of blathering about Destiny and mildly entertaining set pieces.
@8. Chieroscuro: Don’t think that particular spoiler is confirmed till a couple books later. It is however a big spoiler to post here. It would perhaps reduce some of the complaining from some quarters about not knowing where the story is going. But that’s like wanting the solution to a mystery before you’ve even read the clues.
Till the story gets to that point, we don’t know much about why Nilfgaard wants Ciri. Meanwhile, there’s talk of an apocalyptic prophecy and lots of talk about how Nilfgaard is flooding the northern markets with cheap goods. Sapkowski had training in economics and there a fair bit of detail about how these kingdoms trade with each other and why Nifgaard is a threat as an economic power.
@11: We’ve updated the article at the author’s request, to reflect the fact that Vilgefortz does use magic when facing off against Geralt in the books.
I love seeing a well thought out opinion about the show. There are so many people praising it to high heaven on the one side and on the other, people complaining that it’s the worst thing ever. Nilfgaard being so blatantly The Evil Empire ™ not only makes things more boring than the alternative but it also makes many characters look like fools, for instance all the mages who refused to go fight at Sodden Hill. Surely, someone should have noticed already Nilfgaard’s use of mage sacrifices, so instead of whining about Cintra not liking them much, they should have fought simply to preserve their skins. But apparently somehow the mages who love meddling in politics know precious little about Nilfgaard, so Fringilla had to drop by and explain what the Empire current propaganda was. And then Yennefer who stayed in Nilfgaard for like one day explained to the others how things were there.
Same with the magical eels. It only served to portray Tissaia and by extension all mages who knew about it as monsters. Why should viewers be rooting for Yennefer and the Brotherhood if she is fine (after some token protest) with girls being transformed into magical batteries? Later, in another bizarre twist, we learn that not only are the noblemen of the Northern Kingdoms totally unconcerned about most Aretuza students literally vanishing before “ascending”, some even pressed for their children of no magical talent being allowed to enroll. And the mages said yes because… wait for it, they had no choice (I guess that means they needed the money). Really?
And there is also the case of Yennerfer’s fellow students who also had to be subjected to magical plastic surgery in order to graduate…. I mean, ascend. As a result of that they can’t have children. This makes sense in Yen’s case because she had physical deformities but the others were perfectly fine looking and this surgery comes across as utterly ridiculous (and led to almost no change in their appearance to boot). Why is this surgery mandatory? Would a king trust more a mage advisor who looks like a supermodel? I don’t think so. Just another thing that seems to be there mostly for shock value. There are too many things in the show that seemed to have been added without the writers really thinking much about the consequences.
@16. Jack: wait till the show gets to the Council of Sorceresses. They are indeed all preternaturally beautiful precisely because the Northern kings are pigs and that’s what they want at their courts. Perhaps the issue with Cintra is that it had a queen who didn’t necessarily want such women around. Then there’re a couple of elven sorceresses who are also fantasy-level beautiful. The two Nilfgaardian witches get a bit of a culture shock. Fringilla is not the more prominent one, as it appears in the show. It’s someone called Assire var Anahid. When she first arrives the others women perceive her as akin to the Wicked Witch in the Oz series. She wears the traditional witch robes and pointy hat, no makeup or any beauty enhancements.
@17, I have read some of the books and played Witcher 3, and “every sorceress is a supernaturally beautiful” is one of the things that the story can totally do without. The show changed so many things and yet it not only kept this detail but made it even sillier.
I really appreciate this nuanced take on the books vs the TV series. As someone whose appreciation for a movie or TV series can be ruined by reading the books first, I really wondered which I should tackle first. Lately I’ve put more trust in adapted screenplays versus original screenplays but it really depends on the vision of the showrunner (and maybe their budget). I think for The Witcher I will take the gamble and read the books first.
@15 Big respect for addressing it
@author – great article with on-point assessment of the problems in the show
@18. Jack: there are comical and even silly moments in the Witcher novels. The witch’s pointy hat shows how Nilfgaard regards magic users’ focus on their appearance as superficiality.
Then there’s things like Geralt and Co. making fun of Cahir once they find out his full name. Being silly isn’t necessarily a bad thing. There’s room for a variety of tones. Not all has to be a wall of grimdark.
@21, maybe I didn’t phrase this well – nothing wrong with deliberate silliness. The last thing I want is the show to be nothing but grimdark. The Yennefer – Geralt banter in Witcher 3 is amazing, for example. My point is that the show could have kept Yennefer’s magic plastic surgery but avoided making beauty enhancements mandatory for all graduates of Aretusa.
Since I haven’t read the books, most of these changes didn’t bother me too much. Except for the magic thing. I assumed they wanted to limit the use of magic due to budget constraints, but I guess they couldn’t resist in the end.
What bothered me most was the character interactions. They felt lacking. For example, Geralt and Yennefer are supposed to have this powerful romance, but they only interacted in two episodes. Two. Out of eight. They meet in episode 5 and in the next one (the one with the *chicken*dragon) we’re told they had many offscreen encounters before Yen learns about the Last Wish and goes away.
This breaks one of the most basic storytelling rules. Why not spend at least another episode showing us these meetings? I get that they needed to cut some things, but maybe find other stuff to cut and try to develop one of the most important relationships in the story.
It’s strange. Many new shows have this same flaw, of blazing through the plot and ignoring the characters, or forgetting to develop their core relationships. That was a big reason why I was underwhelmed by The Expanse when I watched the first season a few years ago. I didn’t care too much for the main characters there.
But now The Expanse is one of my favorite shows. The second season improves tremendously – the main characters actually have dinner together! And talk about something besides the plot! Weird that it took an entire season for that to happen, but at least it did. Also, my favorite character was introduced during the second season, so that helped.
Anyway, that’s why I’m hopeful The Witcher can get better. I can ignore a few missteps, but only if the characters are solid enough to make me care.
I’m getting a little tired of seeing detractors of the show citing viewers that didn’t read the books as being totally confused by the timeline. Everyone I’ve spoken to in person or on the internet that hadn’t read the books said that they were a little confused until episode 4 where it became obvious that there were multiple timelines. I myself figured it out in episode 3, and the dialogue of episodes 1 and 2 are capable of cluing an astute viewer to this conclusion as well.
Don’t get me wrong, you are more than welcome to dislike the show, for any number of reasons, but please stop citing non-readers being confused by the timeline, as if there’s a majority of viewers still confused by the end of the show. Because there isn’t.
It’s also worth noting that the show was also catering to the video games. I cannot speak to what changes might have been due to that, as I have not played the games either, but it’s possible some of the changes were to honor both source materials in an attempt to appeal to both readers and players.
@23, you make an interesting point about the way television story-telling is changing. It may be a necessary consequence of the shift from 22+ episode seasons to much shorter cycles, with much higher per-hour production costs. “Traditional” network shows have a lot more screen time to fill than streaming-native so, even when they are arc-driven, they have filler episodes and side-plots. The 8-12 hour run time requires a tighter narrative and the production/FX changes have raised the bar fairly significantly for what a T.V. show can do; but those side moments (when done well) were where character development could really breathe. So we’ve lost something in that trade-off.
i’m new to witcher , great stuff![.](//s04.flagcounter.com/mini/Jkzv/bg_FFFFFF/txt_DEDEDE/border_FFFFFF/flags_0/" width="1"/>)
Interesting article. Re some of your changes/comments:
-I wish the show did a better job of explaining that G killed Renfri’s men and Renfri herself because she was going to kill the Alderman’s daughter and, presumably, many more townpeople until Stregobor left the castle (which he wasn’t going to do).
-The turning baby mages into eels, referred to in the essay as magical fuel, is explained in the show dialog. Tissana tells Y that they had magical abilities but lacked the control needed to avoid being a danger to others – hence, the eels. Query whether this is persuasive (i.e., maybe keep them in “school” longer before giving up on them) but it explains why the action was taken.
-I didn’t have a problem with the Niflgard is 100% evil through line. I’m expecting nuance to be added in future seasons. Ditto with subtleties among the politics of the various northern kingdoms.
-I was fine with the Niflgardian mages burning up. Presented as an army supporting a religious cult, with Frangilla being a tough and no nonsense sorceress enforcer who demanded that the other sorceresses give up their lives to try to gain advantage, just like soldiers on the battlefield. I agree one would think you probably don’t have enough mages to burn through in this way, but the concept isn’t ridiculous in-show.
-Agree that the show didn’t do a good job explaining who Vilgefortze was. From the show, I would have thought he was just another mage who happened to be experienced as a military leader. I was also mystified how he could possibly lose a hand to hand sword fight with an unpowered opponent – just turn him into a newt or portal him to a distant desert. Ridiculous that he would confine himself to conventional swordfighting and not rely at all on magic – unless there was something in the show that protected the Nilfgardian from magic that I didn’t pick up on….
I thought the show did fine with the whole Y going to serve a country other than Nilfgard. Sets up the what could have happened drama if Y – a tougher sorceress – had been the one to go to Nilfgard rather than the more malleable (and apparently later converted) Frangilla.
Very interesting discussion. However, the main problem of this series is the lack of internal conflict of Geralt, so visible in the books and the Polish version of the film adaptation. Sapkowski created Geralt as a tragic figure. The monster killer on the one hand, and the human on the other. Mutant. He still asks himself: who am I? Still a human, or just a witcher? And he doesn’t find the answer, because he is increasingly convinced that people are also monsters. However, he can love, make friends, and witchers who are deprived of feelings during a mutation cannot do this. If you enter goolge in the slogan: Dobra strona Jaskra, you’ll find a snippet of this translation movie.
And the second thing – Ciri. In my opinion, the thread of Geralt’s search for Ciri was dramatically reduced. They met earlier, which is not in the Netflix series. Geralt felt a bond with his surprise – child. When she disappeared and he couldn’t find her, he was crazy with anxiety. There is a perfect scene in the Polish series when the actor playing the witcher sits in an inn at the table and stares at the two swords lying in front of him motionlessly. When anxious Jaskier asks him what is going on, Geralt answers: I hate them. I hate because they don’t help her find her. She is nowhere to be found.
The actor played great inner desperation, on the verge of wanting to seek death – just because he couldn’t find Ciri. He is like a father whose daughter has been kidnapped. Their greeting, when they accidentally found each other is perfect, not like in this series, in the woods, when she hugs a stranger.
Can be viewed by entering: Wiedzmin-The Witcher 13 Ciri (with subtitles)
And of course the songs of the Polish composer Ciechowski reflected the Slavic spirit.
The Netflix series is good, but for me it is not the most important – internal, human conflicts of many characters, and above all Witcher. It’s just a series about politics and a magical hack, not about emotions.
@23. Landstander: your analogy to The Expanse will turn out to be apt. The crew of the Roci didn’t much know or like each until they were forced together by circumstance. They grow into friends and later a found family with strong bonds.
Painted large, the story of Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri is of a found family. The whole driving force of the novels rests on Geralt and Yen as surrogate parents trying to rescue their adoptive daughter from the nefarious types.
And that’s what bugs me about some of the complaints I’ve been reading. Some want to know where this story is going NOW! And they cannot deal with not knowing. I guess that means the season generated enough tension to build on, but it’s an absurd expectation. What other series would they lodge this complaint against? In it’s first season, they want absolute clarity about where the plot is going and possibly the endgame.
Side note: One thing I keep forgetting to mention and haven’t seen mentioned is Geralt’s wolf medallion not alerting him to the presence of monsters or magic. The thing should be vibrating or pulling in the direction of something supernatural. Haven’t rewatched yet, but don’t remember this happening at all on the show.
Magda: A great point! I loved the Polish series despite its’ budget being literally three copper coins. I guess, it was the atmosphere it conveyed that I found so irresistible. While it was by no means flawless, it felt original. And since there was no money to be spent on flashy scenes, the accents were put on the characters’ internal conflicts and personal dramas. I did not want to touch on this aspect in the article because I cannot argue its’ validity without falling prey to my personal bias. It is a matter of preference. To me, the Netflix Series did not seem original. I don’t think they should have made the Witcher innovative in every aspect or turned it into a 100% Slavic Fantasy (I doubt they could pull that off without reinforcing stereotypes). But, in the end, there’s nothing in that show that felt new. I have seen/read all of that before. Many other viewers, however, found it almost flawless.
Devin: Thank you for bringing up the intertwined storylines. I suppose, this attitude is personal. Some viewers are confused, while others are not. I grew up on Sapkowski’s books, but I found the storylines very difficult to follow.
Landstander: I haven’t even thought of Geralt spending only two episodes interacting with Yennefer in the show. That is a great point! Judging from the amount of time spent together on screen, those are Geralt and Jaskier, who are the story’s main couple in the show rather than Geralt and Yennefer. Perhaps, the situation will change as RobMrobM pointed out.
For me, the show fell very flat, because they removed all comedy from it. Yes, Witcher universe is dark, but the books made me laugh so many times! The show, not so much. The plain-speaking folks (actually, most non-aristocratic characters have distinctly country-bumpkin way of speaking) of the book’s world delivered many a line that sent me grinning from crude, but often timely humor, and even more highly placed characters often reverted to “common” way of speaking. In show, instead, pretty much everyone speaks like they’re heroes in a typical high-fantasy novel.
Hell, they cut djinn exorcism from the series (“go away and fornicate with yourself”, that one). And the whole combat scene with the dragon. Yarpen Zigrin as a herald was one of the funniest moments of that story. OK, books start getting a bit more serious after the first two, but still, the show, IMO, changes the tone of book completely, from a deconstruction of high-fantasy tropes to a embodiment of those tropes. This betrayal stings more than anything, and I’m not coming back for the second season: there is no hope for it in my eyes.
@3
The withering/cost of using magic is pretty important during the Battle of Sodden Hill, as it takes quite a lot out of the enemy mages that create the fireballs.
My wife and I have not previously read the books or played the games. I heard mixed reviews and we decided to give the show a try. We thought it was absolutely brilliant and have already watched twice through. There are points that make more sense the second time through, but the first time through (with intrinsic suspense) was a much better viewing.
The show holds up just fine for people with no previous exposure to the world.
That said, the show does have some weaknesses and inconsistencies (which I noticed much more the second time through than on the first viewing). The inconsistent ‘cost of magic’, the royal families insisting on sending untalented youth to Aretuza, etc. It sounds like these were added by the show and not present in the books. I am interested in giving them a read now.
What!? I haven’t read the books, so I don’t feel any attachment to them, and I think I have an open mind (but it would have been good to explain what that means in this context), and, no, it’s not a fine show. It’s bad. It’s, exactly as you described in all your previous paragraphs, a terrible show. I only watched to the end because I haven’t solved my own obssession impulses which make finish everything that I start (except Brandon Sanderson books; those things are damned and insulting to whoever open their pages). My overall opinion of the show is, “Hmph. Fu*k!”
I will say that since I enjoyed the show, the comments in this thread have convinced me not to read the books.
@33: I had never heard of this series or the video game before, but I figured out the timelines stuff reasonably quickly and really enjoyed the show overall, so I agree, you don’t have to have a lot of previous exposure for the show to work for you.
@35: Same here.
@35. Sophist: ” the comments in this thread have convinced me not to read the books.”
Well sure, any flimsy excuse not to read more…
But seriously, just about every comment I’ve made has been supportive (also in the other Witcher article/thread by a reviewer who watched only four episodes), so you must be narrowing in on ” the comments” that reinforce your prior resistance. And that’s fine, reading something that doesn’t draw you won’t lead to enjoyment.
The adaptation has been respectul and clever. Without nostalgia glasses, some rough aspects of the original stories have been polished and feel better now, even if each of us might miss this or that (to name a pet peeve of mine, I thought The Lesser Evil was worth more development, but getting less screen time was a tradeoff for getting Yennefer and Ciri in the show, in practically equal terms with Geralt, from the very first episode). Also, nuggets of gold within these stories have been depeloped further and given new life (to name one, the battle of the mages in the last episode, that is mentioned only as distant news at the end of The Sword of Destiny). One cannot help thinking that Sapkowski must surely be happy to see how his creature has done in the wider world, in this other medium of tv.
By the way, your mention of Yennefer as a flawed character is apreciated. Geralt is flawed, Yennefer is flawed, who is not, in these stories? And that works great. In these times when some ask for strong women characters and others fancy strong men, children, dogs, whatever, give me the flawed characters, for those are the ones who ring true.
Now, very brief comments on some things you mentioned:
Eels and Fringilla: those worked for me.
“The Good Northern Kingdoms and the Evil Empire to the south.” Northern Kingdoms appear plenty of shortcomings. Genocide against elves in Cintra. Incest in royal houses. Rampant prejudice and xenophobia amongst the common folk. Psycho-like knights. Plus the manipulative mages of Aretuza, and then the doings of Stregobor. On the other hand, it is true that Nilfgaard is painted as the evil guys of the story (genocidal and fanatically religious, but at least with beer aplenty for all), only that the Northern Kingdoms are, ahem, the lesser evil.
Dara helps showing the genocide against elves in a more direct way than the explanations in Aretuza or in the rebels’s lair.
Life sacrifices among Nilfgaardians fit the theme of religious fanaticism and draws a parallel to what they do in Aretuza. Not eden, the North.
All in all, a nice reading, thanks.
Sunspear, your comments have been helpful and appreciated. I meant only those book readers who are making a point of how unhappy they are with the show compared to the books.
Teob, thank you for the comment. :) Of course, the Polish series was recorded over 18 years ago and had such a meager budget that Polish viewers of the cult book series were already yelling in rage, especially in cinemas, on the movie version, because the series had better opinions. The rubber dragon and all these beasts, and some really messy interiors, are horrible things. But the rest are pretty good photos, beautiful views and great acting of several characters, including Żebrowski. I loved the Polish series specially for acting. And for the wonderful music of Ciechowski.
In my opinion, Sapkowski’s books show just such a torn Witcher internally and this is apt, because the author referred here to the Polish concept of a noble hero, whose fate does not spare, and enemies grow like mushrooms after rain. Usually this type is tragic and the author must torment him so that the reader can feel his tragedy. Anyway, in the knightly and medieval world – and we have such references here, nothing is simple. And it just grinded awfully in the new version of Netflix.
Henry Nevill played Geralt this way, because this was probably the director’s vision, but I associate it only with a cowboy, like Gregory Peck in westerns. Geralt is, however, a knight mutant. He helps, saves and at the same time kills. Hence his internal struggle over: what is honorable, what to do, who he really is and who he wants to be. For me, Sapkowski choose the concept: I want to be a father and chop the whole world if they hurt Ciri. And in second place: I also want to be close to Yennefer; I want to protect my friends.
Geralt, after an internal struggle, decides to create himself not according to the ideas of others, but according to his own beliefs and values. This is how I see it in books and the Polish series. And this is the interesting interpretation of the character, which has unfortunately gone in the direction of “hard warrior” and that’s it.
In the Netflix version, Geralt is simply a warrior who knows his value, focused on the mission to defeat enemies. He has no doubt what to do, he does not distract whether it’s good or not. There is a challenge and you have to take it. Henry Nevill played such a warrior brilliantly, but he was probably not allowed to show any depth of thought. That is why the scenes screamed so much when he tried to smuggle a bit of humanity, in conversations with Jaskier, in close proximity to Yennefer, etc. It just did not suit this character, but it is probably difficult to explain to those viewers who have no literature and history knightly threads. And Nevill can perfectly play a moral doubts, because in The Tudors he showed it very well as a prince embroiled in obeying orders contrary to his beliefs.
Finally, I must say that although the actress playing Ciri is very interesting, the addition of Ciri for years changes the mood completely. Saving a young girl and saving a child has different colors, different tone of plot.
That’s why it’s a completely different story than the real story of Wiedźmin. Other changes to the original are no longer valid here. This is two stories, and thats all.
@Magda: I haven’t seen the Polish version, but you’re right: this Netflix version is an adaptation. As such, it won’t satisfy all expectations. We all bring expectations to an adaptation if we know something of the source material. Apparently, some had expectations even without prior knowledge. And some know the Witcher from the video games. Cavill himself has read the books and is/was an avid player of the games. His voice in the series is modeled on that of the voice actor in the games. To my mind, gruff and terse would’ve been okay, but it’s a bit too monotone.
There are flaws in this adaptation: one example that would have helped a lot would have been to clarify that Renfri’s men were about to start killing people at the town market until Stregobor emerged from his tower. That’s the reason for Geralt’s choice of the lesser evil. He saves lives by stopping them, but earns the title of Butcher. This was a mistake of omission.
Another such mistake was not clarifying that the sylvan was stealing from the townsfolk to feed starving elves. That the elves are in dire straits because of human expansion leads directly into the introduction of the commando elves in the novels. It was another missed opportunity to establish that.
Also, I’ll repost this link from the other thread in case it helps anyone with the timeline. It’s a good graph:
witcher-deconstructed-timeline
Here’s an interactive map and timeline that may help some viewers. I read the books (which don’t include the standard fantasy maps) and it clarified some geography for me.
witchernetflix interactive map
Both of those are helpful. Thanks.
Ha, Sunspear, I posted, or tried to, the same link on the other thread. Apparently it’s waiting moderation.
Anyway, the map itself is very nice and the interactive features are really useful. I’m a sucker for good fantasy maps and this one is a very pleasing example of one. And just as well because The Witcher has had an iffy history with it’s maps (or their lack off), including the games in which there were some mistakes.
@Val: One source of confusion for me while reading the books was where Geralt and co. were in relation to the Yaruga. It would have helped a lot if the translation had said north or south of the river, instead of left bank, right bank. Not sure I understood that both Cintra and Sodden were south of the Yaruga.
This map makes it clear that Nilfgaard has already crossed the country of Sodden and they are about to cross into the higher northern kingdoms, hence the bottleneck battle at Sodden Hill. The books don’t portray the battle, so there’s no focus on the bridge.
@@@@@ Sunspear, yeah without a map it would’ve been confusing to use left/right bank. My first contact with The Witcher was with the 1st game. It came with a map so I was never had this issue. From my looking around the internet it looks like some editions of the books come with maps too now. I like maps… ;)
I loved the series. I did not expect to love it that much but it was so addictive. I hadn’t read the books or played the games before but I had no problem following the show. I loved the scructure of it and the three different timelines and how the characters journeys paralleled one another and how Geralt and Yennefer’s choices affected Ciri’s fate and put in to motion her story. (Yennefer not going to Nilfgaard, Geralt’s Law of Surpise etc). I can’t wait for season 2 in which the main story starts so I expect it will only get better. In the meantime I’m off to read the books.
@28 wow that was beautiful Magda, a rare praise for our old dear Hexer :), it did indeed manage to portray well Geralt’s depth of character, Żebrowski did a nice job there. Also in general the portrayal of short stories in the polish series was a bit more book accurate (while of course having it’s own dose of artistic license). In general I agree with all the points brought up in the essay as well. Some change netflix did don’t work, and even character interactions are not getting there yet, the friendship of Geralt and Jaskier in the netflix show is not as it should be, it seems that most of the time Geralt merely tolerates him, sure Jaskier was annoying at times in books too, but Geralt still considered him a good friend. Polish series amusingly also nicely portrayed the friendship of the two, Żebrowski and Zamachowski had nice dynamic. One of the major things, changes that netflix did that really, really bothers me is the lack of first meeting of Geralt and Ciri, the two have no time together and they don’t start developing a bond (which should be focus of future seasons), Sword of Destiny was one of my favorite short stories so the biggest butchery of it really irks me. Plus the worldbuilding in the show, it indeed could have been better, but instead of fleshing out things which Sapkowski left vague they actually seem to remove some elements and make their own versions in netflix show.