• snooggums
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The source material is what keeps it from just being another generic fantasy setting with stereotypical characters, which is what the writers were turning The Witcher into in the very first season, and I heard it got worse from there but stopped watching.

    Great adaptations keep the important bits. Cavill trying to keep the important bits was the only reason the show wasn’t worse. The writers and producers were the ones who signed on for a Witcher project and tried to turn it into their own.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think you are kind of assuming he was only keeping the important bits and wasn’t being stubborn. We actually have no idea what the dynamic was truly like and who was “right.”

      • snooggums
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 months ago

        We know Cavill wanted to do a Witcher show, we know the writer’s changed things significantly, and Cavill left the show. A writer that left was the one who brought up the other writer’s mocking the source material, so it wasn’t only Cavill that seemed to have an issue. Then there are the fans, who also did not appreciate the changes.

        Why try to put the blame on one actor for being stubborn when the situation is the commonly seen Hollywood adaptation leaves out important details from the source?

          • snooggums
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I think you are kind of assuming he was only keeping the important bits and wasn’t being stubborn.

            Since he has articulated the parts he likes about the Witcher that weren’t included, and fans who agreed with him complained about the same parts being left out, it is pretty safe to assume he wanted to keep the important bits.

            Jumping the gun to saying he was stubborn is blaming him. Is wanting to make a show based on the source material being stubborn, or just being dedicated to the source material?

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              Once again, I did not blame him. I did not say he was stubborn. I’m saying it’s totally possible he was, just like it’s possible he was totally (or largely even) in the right and the parents for TW are just stubborn hacks who need to hear him out. But again, none of us actually know what was going on. Snippets we’ve gleaned from media is not sufficient.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Cavill reportedly badgered his agent to let him meet with The Witcher showrunner Lauren Schmidt-Hissrich as she recalls him being “really annoying” with his insistence on playing the lead role in the series that (at the time) she hadn’t even begun writing yet

      Yeah, no the show had no intentions of telling the same story from the start.

      Cavill messed everything up before even starting, this is entirely on him for pushing his way into a show and demanding what he wanted instead of what everyone else was doing.

      • snooggums
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Why make a show called the Witcher that has nothing to do with the source material?

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Why make multiple video games that have nothing to do with the source material as well? Very few adaptations are 100% faithful to the source material, lots tell alternate ideas, it’s hilarious that people think this one should be the outlier. The other media in this universe already has nothing to do with the books already lmfao.

          It’s called telling additional stories or fleshing out other stories.

          The Witcher could be a vast universe with multiple stories to tell, why tell the same one multiple times?

          • snooggums
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            There is a difference between telling different stories with the same settings and characters and changing the setting and characters enough that it loses the things that make the setting and characters unique.

            The Lord of the Rings movies were a great adaptation even though the deviated from the source material to fit the mew medium. The Dark Tower was a terrible adaptation, and felt like some other movie pretending to be the Dark Tower.

          • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Are you serious? The games are basically unofficial sequels to the books. They absolutely have something to do with them lol wtaf.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              8 months ago

              The games are basically unofficial sequels to the books. They absolutely have something to do with them lol wtaf.

              So are they faithful to the material, or are they a separate story like the show was?

              The games aren’t the books, the show wasn’t either, and people are mad about that, lmfao.

              • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                They’re continuations of the story. They take the established lore and expand on them, just like an additional book would.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  Huh, just like what the show was doing…. What’s your point here again?

                  That one media can tell a different story than the books, but another can’t? Thats just asinine lmfao.

                  • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    You can’t tell the difference between an adaptation and a sequel? The show was not a “different story”, it was a poorly-made adaptation that they didn’t want to make. They wanted Game of Thrones using an unrelated existing IP. If they really wanted a different story entirely, they should have avoided using the characters and events from the books.