[Gothos]

amphibian, on 07 January 2020 - 07:52 PM, said:

But this is a situation where the planet they're on did not have humans prior to the Conjunction of the Spheres. They traveled there from elsewhere and as a result, people everywhere have a ton of different skin colors.

See, this is just as much of an assumption as the contrary, since details about the arrivals of the humans are scarce, though what I do have is ships arriving at the shores near the mouth of Pontar and Yaruga, for humans. A most modest soujourn. As much as your point is interesting, I very much doubt the humans of this world would share the space outside their respective source kingdoms or whatnot. Prejudice here doesn't end on ear shape.

Quote

I understand that the books and the games are heavily linked into a Polish heritage, but this makes sense for the TV show. It looks good and it lets some great actors do their jobs on-screen without penalty for their non-white skin color. That's worth a lot.

See, turning this around and saying it was important for John Wayne to do his job on-screen without penalty for his white skin color when playing Genghis Khan doesn't sound quite as awesome, does it? For a pre-existing character, you cast to fit the role.
It's the difference between making Liet Kynes a woman so she can be Stilgar's wife and Chani's mother, adding complexity to the relations between characters (mind you, I still don't like it but that's just because I'm a purist when it comes to adaptations), and making Liet Kynes a woman because it's 2020 and it's about time.

Quote

I agree that Calanthe being an elf murderer is a great move. It makes Ciri and her destiny a more complex thing. It creates a question of "would she just ignore this and continue being a human Cintra above all royal like her grandmother?" It brings the elf genocide into the story in a way that characters other than Geralt and Jaskier experience.

The tensions between human and non human are constantly popping up in the show and that's a good thing.

Nilfgard being off screen and treated like a civil war hotbed was a smart move. It makes the invasion force led by Cahir and Fringilla more of a surprise.

It turns Cintra from a victim of imperialism (at least outwardly, it's hard to talk about plot points fully without long-term spoilers) into a victim of their hubris. It's a significant change even without diving into the wild world of real life analogues for events and countries in the books.
Also the nature of the racial violence is warped. What was mob rule pogroms, here is shown as a military campaign. The difference seems small, but is essential.

Oh and - civil war hotbed is one thing, dirt poor backwater is another. At this point this was an empire spanning an area just about larger than the northern kingdoms combined.

These plot differences may not seem like much now, but they cast a long shadow for the future.

[amphibian]

I'm not going to engage with you. Using John Wayne as Genghis Khan in a racist movie for your talking point here means you aren't in any frame of reference that's reasonable.

[Gothos]

amphibian, on 08 January 2020 - 03:06 AM, said:

I'm not going to engage with you. Using John Wayne as Genghis Khan in a racist movie for your talking point here means you aren't in any frame of reference that's reasonable.

Same right back at you. Unsurprising, but still disappointing.

[Puck]

Gothos, on 07 January 2020 - 10:21 PM, said:

amphibian, on 07 January 2020 - 07:52 PM, said:

But this is a situation where the planet they're on did not have humans prior to the Conjunction of the Spheres. They traveled there from elsewhere and as a result, people everywhere have a ton of different skin colors.

See, this is just as much of an assumption as the contrary, since details about the arrivals of the humans are scarce, though what I do have is ships arriving at the shores near the mouth of Pontar and Yaruga, for humans. A most modest soujourn. As much as your point is interesting, I very much doubt the humans of this world would share the space outside their respective source kingdoms or whatnot. Prejudice here doesn't end on ear shape.

This. Everything we know from the books suggests very few points at which the Crossing happened, from where humanity spread like a fire across the Witcher world because they were able to breed much faster than the native races. The crossing was NOT a world-wide event. That's why the Zerrikanians, while considered foreign at the time of the story, are blonde and white in the books. Now, I have no issue with what the show did with the Zerrikanians and Dryads and the need to make the Crossing have happened everywhere, if it pleases the American audience, but I DO have an issue with the show erasing EVERY SINGLE trace of it's Slavic roots from the story. There's NOTHING. And I stand by that. This has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with actually being Slavic and knowing how often we are portrayed in the worst light and being sick of that.

They've also created a bunch of plot holes within the show itself. Not just compared to the books, but within the show. Now, I do like some of the changes they made, but the majority of them is pointless. Yennefer is a clown who made a conscious choice then spends the remainder of the season whining about it.

[Khellendros]

Gothos, it’s interesting that you say that that was one element which the game got right. I loved the Witcher 3, but the one glaring criticism of the game that I had while playing was the question of just why everyone was white - be it human, elf, dwarf whatever. It just really stood out and it actually felt quite awkward to me after a while. And it just looked even worse when they introduced the ‘ethnic’ characters in the DLC.

I am Slavic too, and I totally get how sigh-worthy it can be to see only characterisations as brutes, war criminals, femme fatales. But it’s not surprising that the show doesn’t spend much effort on highlighting its Slavic roots - it’s made for a Western audience by Americans who probably have little knowledge of that. You would need someone with a vested interest to come along and get Netflix funding.

[Puck]

You make it sound like we're supposed to not care just because it's not surprising? Of course it's not surprising, but considering how much of a hard on the show has for "diversity", it's laughable. You can't just say it'S fine to erase any sign of the origins of a story while at the same time saying it's perfectly understandable to write in elements of others to make it more diverse. I'm pretty sure you can include both, or leave it entirely. I guess diversity only matters when it concerns issues Americans care about. Pretty sure the show was supposed to be enjoyable by anyone, not just Westeners (not my words, mind you). Diversity, my ass.

That aside, I do actually have to refute one criticism of Gothos and defend the show (surprising, I know). I think that with Vilgefortz and Cahir,

Spoiler

Vilgefortz may have lost on purpose. He's supposed to be allied with Emhyr about capturing Ciri and it wouldn't have done this goal any good to kill the guy tasked with capturing her. I say we shall find out if that's the case later.

Actually, I'm a huge fan of the casting choices for both Vilgefortz and Cahir. It was pretty obvious from the start that they were not going to hide Cahir's face for almost two seasons, so might as well cast someone who looks mean enough to cause Ciri nightmares without any scary helmets. I don't even mind the fanatic thing and I loved the Doppler fight and how they built exposition into it. I feel like introducing that angle this early on gives Cahir the room for development I felt he lacked in the books. Hated the entirely uncharacteristic massacre, though. And his armor is a disgrace.

And Vilg feels about as sleazy as I had imagined him.

[Khellendros]

Puck, on 08 January 2020 - 07:22 PM, said:

You make it sound like we're supposed to not care just because it's not surprising? Of course it's not surprising, but considering how much of a hard on the show has for "diversity", it's laughable. You can't just say it'S fine to erase any sign of the origins of a story while at the same time saying it's perfectly understandable to write in elements of others to make it more diverse. I'm pretty sure you can include both, or leave it entirely. I guess diversity only matters when it concerns issues Americans care about. Pretty sure the show was supposed to be enjoyable by anyone, not just Westeners (not my words, mind you). Diversity, my ass.

That aside, I do actually have to refute one criticism of Gothos and defend the show (surprising, I know). I think that with Vilgefortz and Cahir,

Spoiler

Vilgefortz may have lost on purpose. He's supposed to be allied with Emhyr about capturing Ciri and it wouldn't have done this goal any good to kill the guy tasked with capturing her. I say we shall find out if that's the case later.

Actually, I'm a huge fan of the casting choices for both Vilgefortz and Cahir. It was pretty obvious from the start that they were not going to hide Cahir's face for almost two seasons, so might as well cast someone who looks mean enough to cause Ciri nightmares without any scary helmets. I don't even mind the fanatic thing and I loved the Doppler fight and how they built exposition into it. I feel like introducing that angle this early on gives Cahir the room for development I felt he lacked in the books. Hated the entirely uncharacteristic massacre, though. And his armor is a disgrace.

And Vilg feels about as sleazy as I had imagined him.

I’m not saying it’s not disappointing, but yes, it is understandable and no, it is not about pandering to one form of diversity and not another (and why would you want it to be merely pandered to anyway if that’s what you think lies at the heart of this?).

You can’t say, ‘well they included actors of colour in the show so where is my in-depth reflection of Slavic mythos and tradition?‘ One is a simple casting decision (does it matter for the role/plot if this character is white, black, brown? No? Ok). The other takes research, knowledge, probably some background affinity or long-standing cultural immersion, and integration into the plot. Again, I’m not saying that you don’t raise a valid point (I actually believe you do when it comes to the show lacking almost any clear callback to its folkloric origin) but I also don’t think you can equate these two things when it comes to how a show is constructed. If you’re saying this is a version of cultural appropriation then perhaps that’s something to take up with Sapkowski, who was apparently involved in the show’s creation and seems quite happy with how it turned out.

[Puck]

I wasn't equating those two things, though, not in the way you are presenting it as. To the opposite, I am questioning the need to erase the story's roots in order to make it more relatable to a wider audience (again, not making this shit up, there's an AMA with one of the show's directors on Reddit where he explicitly states they deliberately ignored the lore in order to bring in the "human element", whatever the fuck that means, because apparently Slavic roots make a story inhuman, I guess?)... Anyway, while at the same time pandering (yes, pandering, again, not pulling this out of my ass) to the current American political climate, and doing it badly, just skimming on the surface level. These aren't even on the same plane of concern, so why can't we have both? I'd rather there was no pandering at all and the story worked organically, as many, many other shows and adaptations work, but this show is just done lazily. They didn't just look into the matter and decided to cut out the lore's roots for reasons they thought would make it a better show, no, they just didn't bother at all to begin with, and it SHOWS.

I'm going to honest and say that I simply feel like the show has the depth of a spit puddle. It's not even "just" about cutting out any semblance of folklore (any kind of folklore, not just Slavic) out of it, it's that there is nothing that has been substituted for it in there, just a cardboard surface as flat as those awful props they used for half the show. Just flat pieces of plot and flat dialogue. Why are the show runners so afraid of having a story with more than one layer? Because viewers are all idiots? I'm sure we've been over this assumption in the fantasy & sci-fi genres twenty times over, and just by looking at other TV shows and other adaptations, it is not impossible to even rewrite huge parts of a story and still keep it multi-dimensional and true to the spirit of the source. Part of the issue here is that the folklore roots of the story INFORM it, its plot and its characters, so removing those roots creates a story that has no anchor and things just happen because they happen, not because of the underlying framework of stories and mentality. It's like ice on a lake where the water has drained away.

I don't care whom they cast as whom, the only reason I even mentioned the Crossing was to correct a currently widely spread misunderstanding of the source material, in which there was no worldwide Crossing event. That doesn't mean this cannot or should not be changed for the adaptation, just that, come on, let's not misrepresent what the books actually say and let'S not pretend the books weren't written from the PoV of a polish author who had no reason to think about what potential implications what he was writing may or may not have 20 years down the line. Times change, so change it in the adaptation, just don't pretend that change is what the source was saying to begin with. We should have the mental capacity to not retroactively change what has already been written, but instead simply acknowledge that times and expectations have changed.

And as for Sapkowski himself, he famously loves money and will be happy with anything as long as enough of it changes locations to his bank account. That's not a reliable marker of the quality of anything.

This post has been edited by Puck: 09 January 2020 - 03:46 PM

[amphibian]

That's a total misrepresentation of what the Reddit AMAs have said.

Here's one quote from the showrunner Hissrich:

Quote

Question: 1)Ok, I have a question about the hottest topic probably – diversity.

You could honestly learn from Game of Thrones on how to nail diversity in a medieval fiction. POC in GOT never felt as forced casting. They represented different culture of Westeros like Naath, Sothoryos, Dothraki. What you guys did on the other hand, is randomly throwing around poc here and there with no origins or background. There are nonwhite cultures in the books like Ofir, Zangvebar etc. Why not just explore them and have poc represent these nations instead of just building modern day Brooklyn into medieval fantasy? Furthermore, why are fictional races like Elves are subject to human ethnic and racial differences at all,t hey are race of their own?

Answer: Ah yes, the hot topic!

The discussions about race in the writers room, with the producers, and with Andrzej himself were long and varied. We talked about the history of the Conjunction of the Spheres (are all humans out in the ether the same color? Did the Conjunction drop certain races in certain areas?), we talked about the Continent being a huge place (are we to believe that people don't migrate?), and we talked the most about how racism was presented in the books. Like all readers, we always came down on the side that racism in the books is represented by species-ism -- humans vs. elves vs. dwarves vs. gnomes vs. halflings vs. monsters and so forth. It's not about skin color at all. You don't notice skin color when instead you're looking at the shape of ears, or the size of torsos, or the length of teeth.

Furthermore, in the books, there are a few mentions of skin color, usually "pale" or "wind-chapped." Andrzej very specifically didn't add in many details of skin color, he told me himself. Readers generally make assumptions (typically, unless otherwise noted, believe characters to be the same color as themselves). That said, the general assumption is that everyone in The Witcher is the same color, which is why all the focus is on species.

Because it's 2020, and because the real world is a very big and diverse place, we made a different assumption on the show. That people don't pay attention to skin color -- not because they're all the same color, but because the bigger differences are about species, not skin. If you went to your local supermarket and there were people with horns and tails, do you really think you'd be paying attention to how much melanin is in their skin?

Maybe the answer is yes. Clearly, it is for some people! But it wasn't for us, the writers and the producers.

Every AMA mentioned Tomek Baginski, the main Polish producer several times and the other Polish producers. This isn't a pure USA/UK production. The crew had many Polish and Hungarian Witcher book lovers too.

[Morgoth]

Why is it pandering to select actors from a wider variety of skin colours when those actors are good in their roles?

[Tiste Simeon]

Also... It's not actually Eastern Europe... I get that it is heavily based on it and contains many references and homages to the area and cultures but it's fantasy. It doesn't have to be exactly true to life.

[Puck]

amphibian, on 09 January 2020 - 04:43 PM, said:

That's a total misrepresentation of what the Reddit AMAs have said.

Again, you're completely missing my point, especially as far as the AMAs go, and assuming all I am talking about are the race and casting choices (presumably because that's what most people are talking about). Which I am not as I have already said, repeatedly. I'm talking about everything BUT that. Stop assuming I have an issue with what colour the actors are just because I corrected an assumption based on what the books say (all while also saying that I agree with changing that for an adaptation).

Namely, this:

Quote

Question: What research or how much research into the Witcher lore did you do to help you direct the episodes ?
Marc Jobst (producer): Very little. We were clear that we wanted the show to work for all fantasy fans - not just Witcher fans. I approach directing all dramas the same way - what's the story, what are the stakes, who do I care for and why should I care for them? And that's how I approached this. I was interested in how the lore affected character and relationship and how that then impacted the story. That way I can ground the film in character, which is what really excites me - whether in a contemporary drama like TIN STAR, or a fantasy like THE WITCHER. I think we continue to love stories, and return to them again and again, because they teach us how to be human.

Someone kindly explain to me how you can have characters affected by the lore of the story when you don't know that lore is and deliberately cut it out of the story?

Tiste Simeon, on 10 January 2020 - 01:10 PM, said:

Also... It's not actually Eastern Europe... I get that it is heavily based on it and contains many references and homages to the area and cultures but it's fantasy. It doesn't have to be exactly true to life.

You've just explained it yourself.

This post has been edited by Puck: 10 January 2020 - 07:30 PM

[amphibian]

Jobst is a director. He's in charge of the physical filming, making sure what is on the page gets shown as best as possible, and so on. Almost every TV director leaves the lore and the being faithful to the showrunner and the producers and the writers. They don't have time (mostly) and they're trusting the writers, the producers, and the showrunner to get the deep lore stuff right, while getting the summaries of the lore from the people who care.

Jobst gave an honest answer that shows how filming a TV series works and you are saying it shows that he is the one who is chopping it out. He's not. He's trying to work with some adaptation of his usual process to encompass what lore is given to him, while trying to make a movie which is more complicated than doing lore stuff.

The showrunner Hissrich made a brief tall of how the Conjunction of the Spheres in the show had to be talked about in terms of who what where when and why. The show's answers seem to be much more expansive and varied than the books.

We have yet to see how this affects downstream things, but this is already a better adaptation than GoT. Maybe less gripping characters though.

[Macros]

 81965206_3015212325189301_8097439788908412928_o.jpg (79.62K)
Number of downloads: 1

[Tattersail_]

My brother who doesn't read has been going on about this for weeks. He loved it. We watched it and really enjoyed it too. It made us want to open up Witcher 3 game for playthrough. I am excited about the next season

[Brujah]

https://youtu.be/sqkIFpgj_ow

[QuickTidal]

Wife and I are really enjoying (about mid-way through). I've read the books, so the three timelines didn't completely unseat me, but even as a book reader it feels like a weird way to structure the first season...but I did have to explain to my wife about the timeline differences....I think it's first noted in the Foltest/Striga ep where there is any clue (with Gerald dealing with old man Foltest and child Foltest and his sister being at that ball that revamped Yennefer arrives/debuts at).

Wife has not read anything about this series, and so is enjoying in a more untapped way....and funny that she doesn't like Yennefer (even when she's still twisted and misshapen and we are meant to feel sympathy for her) she could see through the facade and see the more selfish and cunning woman underneath....and I mean good on Anna for portraying that so well as that's always who Yennefer felt like in the books.

[QuickTidal]

Finished. Wonderful first season aside from the timeline jumps which I didn't much care for.

The other thing I like is the brightness. This FEELS like a proper fantasy series. GoT was a book series where a lot of it I pictured with lush verdant green fields and bright sunshine sometimes...but that SHOW was always dour, dank and grim with a tonne of dark filters on it...it was SO nice to see a fantasy show that was not afraid to basically be that view of brighter fantasy even while dealing with darker stuff sometimes. The battle of Sodden basically happening in daylight, but not washed out and grim ....a breath of fresh air.

Can't wait for S2!

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 21 January 2020 - 03:13 PM

[Maark Abbott]

QuickTidal, on 21 January 2020 - 03:03 PM, said:

Finished. Wonderful first season aside from the timeline jumps which I didn't much care for.

The other thing I like is the brightness. This FEELS like a proper fantasy series. GoT was a book series where a lot of it I pictured with lush verdant green fields and bright sunshine sometimes...but that SHOW was always dour, dank and grim with a tonne of dark filters on it...it was SO nice to see a fantasy show that was not afraid to basically be that view of brighter fantasy even while dealing with darker stuff sometimes. The battle of Sodden basically happening in daylight, but not washed out and grim ....a breath of fresh air.

Can't wait for S2!

Hmm.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

Boyfriend and I have watched to half way through. He's carrying on and just filling me in, I'm giving up.

For background, we've both read the first book and he's played Witcher III, I'm getting round to it.

There's a lot to like, but I'm not wholly won over unfortunately.

Henry Cavil is an absolute revelation and everything involving Geralt (and to a lesser extent Jaskir) is carrying the rest of the series for me. Thoroughly enjoying all their stuff.

Yennefer.... has the makings of a great character but for me they keep squandering it (this is carried over from the book for me). I'll put in tags just in case anyone wanders in who hasn't watched yet:

Spoiler

For every moment of strength from her it seems to have to be counterbalanced by "Oh, remember how you're ugly really?" and "Remember how the ability to bear children is the single most important thing in the world?" and it's just doing my head in.

I do not care at all about Ciri. Calanthe is brilliant, love the actress cast for her.... but I just cannot bring myself to care what's going in Ciri's timeline. The timeline jumps wouldn't bother me so much if I felt like the three threads were equally strong or compelling.... but I just keep waiting for Geralt's thread to resume and rolling my eyes at Yennerfer's.

Shame, but not for me.

This post has been edited by TheRetiredBridgeburner: 03 February 2020 - 07:46 AM