The Witcher Netflix series begins production.

Who cares what the actors look like as long as they are good actors. Jorah Mormont looked nothing like the character in the book and he was one of the best actors on GoT. One of my favorite characters on the series.

I agree and disagree.

The looks and personalty are part of a characters identity as to who they, the way they behave etc. If you change them, then you risk changing the character completely. This can be both good and bad and it depends on who is changing them and why. Its not trivial matter as you seem to make it out to be.

Looks are very important part of Yennefer's character. There are lot of mention of this in the book. She looks pretty at first sight but Geralt can see thought her disguise etc.

And great actors can pull off a change and make it their own and make you believe they are that character and Jorah Mormont is a great example but looks don't defy Jorah Mormont in the same it does Tyrion or Yennefer.

Then there is also the "why" of it.... Yennefer is described in details in the books. So why would you want to change that? Maybe there is a simple answer and which is they can't find an actress who looks like the Yennefer of books! But people are allowed to wounder why...
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
Lol, I'm neither hollywood or mainstream and I care!
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
907
Mhhhhhhhhhhhm… Let's see.
You didn't watch Titanic and have no desire to, just like me? :D
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
23,459
Mhhhhhhhhhhhm… Let's see.
You didn't watch Titanic and have no desire to, just like me? :D

I didn't watch it either ;-) And had no desire too (even more so after Celine Dion's song ....)

I don't care that much, as long as the show has high production values and the story is true to the spirit of the books/games...so not just "this week's monster is...Theeeeee Shaaaaaaambling DROWNERRRRR!!!!"
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
2,137
Location
Cape Town, South Africa
Usually whenever a book is adapted to the screen the producers make a lot of changes. To me, changing looks is far less important than the very often significant changes to story and setting that are likely to happen.

pibbur who is certain he would change his looks quite extensively if he were to be portraited on the screen, and that no doubt almost everyone would applaude those changes.

PS. I usually have no opinion on whether an actor fits with my internal image of a character or not. The only exception I can think of is Emilia Clarke playing Sarah Connor in Terminator Genisys. Still, iin that movie I reacted with much more hostility to the horrible scene in the MRI lab. DS.
 
Last edited:
I don’t really care much for Witcher lore or what they look like. I’ll watch it and judge it on it’s own merits rather then waste time analyzing and comparing it to books or video games.
 
Everything I see in a given world is part of a whole. So all the Star Trek stuff is one thing, all of DC is another, Witcher is another, et. al. If something comes along that doesn't fit with the established world it's like getting grit in my eye - painful and unwatchable.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
907
Everything I see in a given world is part of a whole. So all the Star Trek stuff is one thing, all of DC is another, Witcher is another, et. al. If something comes along that doesn't fit with the established world it's like getting grit in my eye - painful and unwatchable.
I can understand that even if it doesn't matter that much to me.

Two questions (I'm not arguing, just asking) :
1. To what degree is fitting with the established world subjective?
2. Given that they always change things, how often do you find a tv show fitting?
3. Are there examples of major deviations that actually improve the experience?

BTW, I assume that since there are two witcher sources, that the show is supposedly based on the books, and that most fans only know the games, there may be a lot of disappointment no matter what. I also assume that I may be wrong.

Pibbur who notices that he actually wrote 3 questions.
 
Last edited:
1) I don't object to things that are open to interpretation. So If someone is described as having dark hair in a book, I would expect dark hair in live action, but specific colour or race could be anything.
2)I am almost always disapointed with adaptations and reboots. Sequels are usually ok. Examples: Titans = godawful; Star Trek (2009) = awesome (technically a sequel because Spock provides continuity and explains that this is an alternate universe).
3) I'm not aware of any. Any time I hear a writer/director/producer use the words "new and fresh" I want to shoot them in the head because I know they just destroyed it.

People always say they have to make changes when making an adaptation, but the only changes I accept are for time and budget. Creative changes are bollocks.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2010
Messages
907
Everything I see in a given world is part of a whole. So all the Star Trek stuff is one thing, all of DC is another, Witcher is another, et. al. If something comes along that doesn't fit with the established world it's like getting grit in my eye - painful and unwatchable.

Yikes, glad I'm not burdened with that affliction. I'm able to just enjoy stuff for what it is in the moment.:)
 
The last shot of Cavill as Geralt sold it for me :)

 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,425
Location
UK
Looks alright to me. Have they set a date for it yet?
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
That doesnt look too good, more like low budget; and Cavill looks so ugly.
 
It looks about what I expected it to look like. A low-budget Netflix series.

Anyone know where in The Witcher timeline this takes place?
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,129
Location
Florida, US
Looks decent to me, but I've only played Witcher 2 and don't remember it very well, so I don't have expectations to upset I guess.
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
1,901
Location
UK
Back
Top Bottom