Current Events > wow, Witcher book fans are PISSED

(+) Yeah! (+)

lmao

That's gotta be like 14 people.

In Poland.

DrizztLink posted...

That's gotta be like 14 people.

In Poland.

Lmao

Which character is not white now

lol

no theyre mad at the plot changes in witcher season 2.

Mezcla posted...

lol

no theyre mad at the plot changes in witcher season 2.

Im up to ep 3 but never read the books. What are they mad about?

What_ posted...

Im up to ep 3 but never read the books. What are they mad about?

I'm up to 7 and don't see anything wrong with it but I never read the books though

Meh, honestly the books weren't very good.

The books are terrible and have bad narrative structure..

What_ posted...

Im up to ep 3 but never read the books. What are they mad about?

I mean there a quite a lot of differences but a big piece of that is that the books in general don't have a particularly apparent cohesive narrative, especially Blood of Elves. So they gave the season a original character big bad to focus around. This came with some pretty heavy changes to the Scoia'tael plot from the book.

For the most part the plot changes aren't necessarily bad, just different. As with the first season a lot of the weaker parts come with just trying to find stuff for Yenn to do the whole season when in the book she is only in it for pieces.

There are two admittedly pretty nasty character changes that also understandably rubbed fans, myself included, the wrong way. But I recognize they aren't necessarily a big deal to the overall narrative.

If anyone is, I'm sure nobody's more angry than the author. He's pretty "old man yells at cloud" about the entire brand.

I'm only mad about (Witcher S2 spoilers) them killing off Eskel in one episode. Seems like a waste.

The books are honestly garbage tier.

Personally I like the books, especially the last 3. Blood of Elves and Time of Contempt were kinda putting me to sleep until the end of ToC.

Anyway, I think it's a good move to make a new story loosely based on the books, since I'm not convinced the story would translate well to a show or a movie if adapted faithfully. Personally I'm hoping things go a little more like the games in terms of how impactful the main characters are on the world.

Hayame Zero posted...

If anyone is, I'm sure nobody's more angry than the author. He's pretty "old man yells at cloud" about the entire brand.

He's just angry he sold the license for a sack of potatoes because he had no faith in his own work. The Polish Kangaroo Courts actually allowed him to breech his contract with CDPR and alter the deal so he gets royalties now.

Hayame Zero posted...

If anyone is, I'm sure nobody's more angry than the author. He's pretty "old man yells at cloud" about the entire brand.

Tbh I don't think the dude gives a fuck about fiction that isn't in book form. As long as he gets payed, they can do whatever.

the witcher novels are very slow and honestly not all that great. they're a story that could have easily been told in 2, maybe 3 books stretched into 5. So honestly changes are welcome to a degree.

Everything they changed though feels very weird. I mainly expected a lot more Geralt because they need to keep the video game fans coming back despite the fact that Geralt isn't really the protagonist of the novels at all. Instead, they just sort of... Randomly mixed stuff around in a sadly very netflix style. I'm guessing they realized there was no way they could do a straight adaption of The Blood of Elves (which is probably the slowest thing Sapkowski ever wrote and is mainly about how bad the Witchers are at being surrogate dads) and keep it interesting so they decided to punch things up in the excitement of the core plot with Ciri's training, and give more screentime to side characters than they otherwise would not have gotten. None of it felt like it turned out very well, though imo.

At least they tried I guess

I liked the first 2 books (the short stories) more than the main saga, where the focus is on Ciri.

So, whenever I get to watch the 2nd season (I'm not in a hurry), I don't think I would mind changes from the books.

My brother made a great comparison to Lorf of the Rings. While Tolkien will give you the detailed life history of a single droplet of dew on a tree (which he will also give the life history of), Andrzej Sapkowski leaves out months/years of context.

If it really bothers you, you'll need to think of the books, the games, and the show as 3 different continuities. The game and the show being heavily influenced by the books.

Shotgunnova posted...

I'm only mad about (Witcher S2 spoilers) them killing off Eskel in one episode. Seems like a waste.

Hes a background character in the books. He never would have amounted to anything in the series, if anything theyve elevated him.

The books arent that great btw, maybe theyre better in Polish but the books are pretty low in the fantasy genre that have been overrated because of how good the games, especially the third, are.

The series isnt amazing either but changing plot points isnt one of its major issues.

ultimate reaver posted...

the witcher novels are very slow and honestly not all that great. they're a story that could have easily been told in 2, maybe 3 books stretched into 5. So honestly changes are welcome to a degree.

The first offender that comes to mind is that messenger delivering a letter for the first 5th of the book... maybe 6th but still.

Fony posted...

The books are honestly garbage tier.

So are the games

Nothing surprising there. If you make changes to the source material you're going to have purists raging over it, even if the changes make the story better.

ColonizedMind posted...

Hes a background character in the books. He never would have amounted to anything in the series, if anything theyve elevated him.

In the recent season, they killed off a bunch of random no-name (?) Witchers, so they could've kept him instead of them, at least.

For what? He still wont amount to anything. He only becomes a real character in the games, which theyre not adapting.

i think "whats the point in not keeping him" is as valid a question as "whats the point in keeping him". I don't particularly love Eskel as a character or anything and that didn't upset me or anything but some people do, and it just seemed like a pointless shock value decision

The point is you like his game character, he isnt a character in the books.