How Creative Differences Destroyed Netflix's Witcher
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 มิ.ย. 2024
- Netflix's Witcher is now infamous for losing its lead actor midway through the show, as Henry Cavill's Geralt was recast with Liam Hemsworth. However, such departures from this show are the norm, not the exception, revealing an incredibly hectic production cycle that was unpleasant to all involved and resulted in the sub-par product we see today.
This is the fourth part of a five part series focused on understanding Netflix’s adaptation of Andrzej Sapkowski’s fantasy saga. Throughout, we will look at why certain decisions were made by the production team, why it may not have connected with audiences and make sense of the behind the scenes drama that has led many fans to grow increasingly frustrated at the direction the show is being taken in.
Written and performed by Antoine Heuillard
Follow me at / alien_platypus
TIMESTAMPS
00:00:00 Introduction
00:02:45 The Henry Cavill Situation
00:36:25 Directorial Uncertainty
01:01:15 Preproduction, Costuming and Makeup
01:17:18 Postproduction, VFX, Editing & Stuntwork
01:31:17 A Rushed Production Cycle
01:54:49 Conclusion
#witcher #Netflix #witcherlore #thewitcher - เกม
They didn't hire the wrong actor,they hired the wrong writers.Look at the blood orgins.
What he said is that they hired the wrong actor *for their vision of the show* such as it is. We all know the writing sucks, but the show is all the more incoherent for Cavill having a different vision from the rest of the team and trying to have his way, that's not saying that his frustrations and actions aren't understandable or valid.
@@hawkins347Blood Origins was what they wanted. The results are clear.
Yes, they DID hire the wrong actors. Henry Cavill is bad at his craft.
@@FeuerblutRM lol stop being a clown
@@FeuerblutRMHenry being a good actor is subjective, to you he’s bad. I think he’s good, and both opinions have plenty of people who agree.
Hm, I have to disagree about Geralt not caring for Roach in the books. He cares for his horses, a great deal. Sure, he doesn't explain why he names all them Roach when Dandelion asks, cuz he didn't feel it necessary to explain himself. But it's clear he does it cuz it instills the illusion of a constant in his life. A companion that never leaves him. Doesn't matter if this time, Roach is a chestnut that once belonged to a Scoiatael, he still won't give it up cuz he's got a soft spot for his trusty steed. He even takes time to gallop on the Roach around Beauclair cuz it was a gift from the Duchess. In Season of Storm,s when Pinety teleports Geralt around, Geralt makes sure to put a blanket over Roach's head cuz like him, teleportation makes her uneasy. When Pinety reencounters Geralt in Kerack, he has Roach alive and well, and Geralt is genuinely happy to see her.
In short, he does care for his horses. That's not just a game thing.
I've forgotten some details after two decades - gotta reread again - so thanx for reminding me, I remember now. Yeah, Geralt does care a little for each Płotka, I suppose!
Absolutely. The name roach used in context was more a diminutive or a "pet name" (Kind of like we'd call a beloved pet little 'bug' or 'puppy' etc).. He absolutely cared about them.
Its a prettier name in polish. Roach is not as pretty.
@@sylviasull Doesn't it roughly translate to "little fish" or something?
@@jaffarebellion292 yeah, it's a cute nickname for the type of fish called roach (not the insect).
From the wikia:
"The name refers to the roach (Rutilus rutilus), a common European fresh water fish. It has nothing to do with the cockroach, and nothing directly to do with the either the French given name "Roche" or the character Vernon Roche. Though the English term for the fish ("roach") does in fact share its origin with "Roche": both terms come from the French word for "rock".
It's worth noting that the original name for the horse in Polish is "Płotka", a diminutive form of the word "Płoć" (meaning "roach"). Diminutives are endearing in Polish, so a more direct translation would have been something along the lines of "Roachy" or "Roachie"."
Geralt is near 80 years old during the events of the books and series. Is anyone seriously believes that by this age a person has not fully developed his own principles, character and habits?
Exactly. Spot on!
A person can and does change for their entire life. Principles, character and habits aren't set in stone.
Events in the books are spread over a few decades actually. Some stories are happening 20 or more years before the last 5 books. They happen before Ciri was born.
@@wojtek1582 in first book only. About a decade range in the second one. I think it's safe to say that in the rest 5 we are dealing with the same 80+ guy.
@@wojtek1582 yes, events of "Ostatnie życzenie" & "Miecz przeznaczenia" are spread over many years, but that's... that's not the point being made here, don't you see? At all. It's about consistency.
If anything Witcher Blood Origin showed us who’s vision of the show would’ve been the best. And it was not the Showrunners.
Yup!!
@@martar.2085 Yeah, Cavil should have been given full creative control over the show, not because he is a better show runner or anything, but because he was determent to stick to the source material, well, A source material.
Where as the current show runners had this thing going where they though they were better writers then Andrezej Sapkowski, Henry Cavil gives more of this giddy fanboy feel. I dont believe the Witcher would be a perfect representation of the source, i do believe it would be a much better and more faithful depiction of the characters and the story.
@@Fixti0n I'd prefer Żebrowski to Cavil, Cavil's never been very good as a Geralt, but if you're saying that between Cavil & Hissrich (sp?), Mr Henry Cavil's a "lesser evil", then, yeah. Although that's not saying much.
At least he's not netflix!cahirsmthbutnotevenifyousquintandpray.
Blood origin was edited and scenes cutted down until it was a corpse with just intestines filled with shit
@rick Ross
Whats your point? It was edited by the same people that created it. Hisrich had total creative control and an insane budget that doesn’t show on screen.
What we saw was terrible enough in it’s own context. You can’t blame the editing for that. Only the nonsense plot. But again, who are you trying to put the blame on?
Lauren: I want something that was never done before!
Also Lauren: **proceeds to produce the most basic, generic, unimaginative fantasy show ever**
I think here in Poland we have all felt kind of betrayed by Bagiński. People seriously could not believe how Tomek gave his stamp of approval to this stinking pile of shit. But it seems that he mostly got caught up in a web of Hollywood manipulation, where he thought he controls something, while in reality he was slowly edged out of his dream project. Now I think it's really hard to blame him for anything. Hope one day he'll get to be a part of another Witcher project that, like the games, will be full of passion for the source material and genuinely fun to work on.
Lauren... I don't like saying that someone's despicable, especially if I don't know them personally. But the way she tries to direct the spotlight to herself to be praised, while pushing the blame for anything that went wrong onto her team just screams "bad boss (showrunner)". She overuses the Woman in the Industry card, trying to evade any criticism. At the same time, all these interviews sound like people making excuses all the time. And I'm not surprised, they have to feel awful not only because the end result is just Not Good, but like you said, they probably worked their asses off and it still look less than mediocre.
Tomek's interviews really didn't help him though. At one point he said that nowadays people grow up with tiktok, to translate a quote "The younger the viewers, the less important is the logic". I think that's when he lost everyone and got slammed by the internet, personally lost all hope myself.
@Synthia I remember that interview. His explanation is so stupid. Because of tiktok, the story should focus on drama instead of a proper logical story structure.
He basically missed the entire point of Sapkowski's brilliance. Sapkowski's books have moments of slow burn and then it leads up a big climactic reveal or scene. The story makes sense because of cause and effect.
@@DrRoo91 I completely agree, I have no idea why he said this stupid thing, I mean money I guess but still. He's the guy who did the fantastic intro to witcher 1 which was a straight up book striga story so I thought he knew what's up. Then again he probably has no power over anything and at some point gave up himself. Sad all around.
@@Synthia17 I don't know Tomek but I will say this. It sounds like he's just doing it for the money while trying to act smart.
I remember watching the Striga cutscene with some buddies at a party. We thought it was some badass stuff. That scene was my introduction to the Witcher. Awesome job to him for that scene.
I think Tomek screwed up by working with Netflix in the first place. They should've hired actual professionals and made sure everyone was on the same page. Then Tomek would've made sure that Sapkowski was one of the writers on and behind the scenes. On top of that, made sure CDPR artistic team was on board for the costumes, Music and any other visual direction.
Instead he just sold out and made money on heaping pile of crap.
@@DrRoo91 Yeah, I think he meant good at first since Lauren seemed eager to do good and sold us all those sweet lies, then he realized he's nothing but a diversity hire so netflix can say they worked with Poles to make it. What you said is the dream though I'm sure there's no way in hell someone would make Sapkowski work for his money, to be honest part of the blame is on him for just that, he did not care and let them do whatever they wanted with his franchise. At the end, one person can't do much even if he had Henry's support, they both probably lost a part of their soul getting into this mess.
This show WOULD NOT have worked on paper as you claim, even if Cavill had been 100% cooperative with Lauren Hissrich.
I appreciate you trying to analyze this from all directions but I think you’re giving credit for talent we’re none actually exists.
Yup!
Yes
Yeah
If you needed any further evidence I present to you The Witcher: Blood Origin.
I agree, Henry Cavill is a talent-free zone.
Very cringy for them to use Henry's pull and his love for the source to bring in people and then completely shit on him and try to blame him for "drama and unprofessional, toxic gamer behavior". Very sad for the man, can imagine his heart bursting as soon as he realized they're going to butcher the series.
Shame for Tomek Bagiński, the producer too. He was responsible for the fantastic intro to the first game, with the striga that was straight from the books and yet, didn't deliver in the slightest here. Hearing about Sakharov saddens me a lot, I would love to see his vision.
I disagree with Roach point, Geralt did care. He maybe named all the horses the same but Roach he had in books was skittish, bucked and hard to handle. He kept talking crap about it but even Milva herself told him straight to his face that he get's attached and wouldn't be able to even leave the horse behind.
Also can't really put all the blame on Henry because I find myself agreeing with him and saddened by the showrunners lack of understanding and vision overall. The show is a mess already (thanks to this video I see it's worse than I ever thought, honestly there could be a show with the main character being incompetend showrunner that messes up everything they possibly can) and I have lost all hope, so I rather have a few bits of real Geralt than a complete caricature of him like they did to Yennefer. I do undestand your point though and it's a strong one.
I'm so terrified of the best Geralt Hanza Arc...
Yeah I didn’t notice how strong they went on the marketing using Cavill and praising his work ethics just for them to bash him to save face with the fans. I also agree with what you said about Roach, I have only read The Last Wish (hopefully next week I can make a trip to the bookstore) and I never got the impression that he didn’t care for the horse, I do understand the whole thing about him having to change horses because it makes sense and I’m not insinuating that he will die for his horse but that still wouldn’t stop him from being attached to it, especially when it’s a living thing and I noticed in this book that Geralt has that respect to sentient, well-meaning beings so I wouldn’t be surprised if Roach fell in that category. Idk maybe I misinterpreted his character since I only read one book.
@@kimjongun5613 No, you got it right. Geralt is like the dad that tells you he doesn't want a dog and will hate said dog, yet when nobody sees it, he'll pet it.
@@Synthia17 that’s exactly what I was feeling but I couldn’t put into words, my brain went blank for some reason
Regarding the incompetent show runner show…may not exactly fit but I thing there is actually a show like that called “Episodes” that stars Matt LeBlanc as himself acting in the American adaption of some UK show 😆
@@thanotos3013 Now that sounds interesting, have to check it out, thanks! :)
Cavill wanted to make a Witcher TV show.
The showrunners wanted to make something else and pretend it's Witcher.
It's obvious who's in the right.
Simple as.
I think you give the writers too much credit. If Blood Origin were good, if the content for other characters didn't feel like a sorry imitation of a generic fantasy CW show, there'd be a case for them having good ideas that could have been respected and led to something successful. But the present evidence suggests Cavill carried this show. If they had skipped on Cavill and hired some obedient lead like you suggest, we wouldn't be talking about this at all because there would only have been 1 season.
I have my doubts about Geralt not caring about his horse. I could have swore when he gets his new Roach outside of Brokilon they note that it’s rather skittish and a bit unruly. Later they say he’s had the horse with them the entire journey even though he had opportunities to swap it for a new and better mount along the way. Implying he had become attached to it.
In the books he talks to his horse just like in W3. Of course he cared
Now that I actually heard what Hissrich was saying in the various panels, the allegations that Henry was lazy, never on time, toxic gamer and a mysoginist towards female writers, it's even more obvious they try to vilify him now for the collapse of their show. They can't even own their own incompetence and lack of devotion to the story they're trying to portrayal. They destroyed what he loved, now they're tarnishing his good name. I'm so over that show I do not intend to ever tune in again. And Netflix has lost another subscriber.
Heh. Women, right?
@@Borderose Heh. Missing the point completely, right?
@@BorderoseHeh. Misogyny right?
@@DzikiDelfin Thank you. I try.
@@be12 No, you are.
There's no talking now. Not anymore. Just jokes and hate. The way God intended.
I still have serious issues with season one. How was anyone, other than the writer, able even to understand who was who and what was happening? It was such a convoluted, ridiculous mess, I'm shocked any producer could have watched the dailies and then approved the takes.
And no, Cavil did not ruin the show by rewriting the Roach-death scene. Cavil KNOWS this character, inside and out. And he knows how to PRESENT this character within the film format. Had he agreed to present Geralt as a dispassionate, stoic a-hole, he would never have connected with the audience. The fuel and engine that drive any film is EMOTION. Just ask any of the top-tier film directors and actors. If your primary character shows no emotions at all, no one will care about him. It's just that simple.
Exactly!! I agree completely.
Well, I had to explain things to people who read the books but remembered them worse then I :D
convoluted writing = hide amateur writing.
I'm Eastern European - Romanian, not Polish, but there are many cultural and especially traditional similarities. I was so excited to see some EE folk motifs, some music in a popular show. Anything. A passing peasant's blouse in the background, some of our motifs on houses/clothes/fences/weapons etc. Nothing. Just grey and generic. And her comment about "nothing Eastern" enrages me. If we weren't white and European, her comment would have created its deserved outrage. What a "see u nt".
The closest they got to that was the pilot episode, season 1. I truly felt for a moment that the dirty streets of Blaviken felt like the rural town of Targoviste. And the music too, was phenomenal in first season. No good things last it seems.
The most east europian thing in that shiw was the fact that tome parts of it were shot in Hungary and if you listen closely you can hear some of the extras speaking hungarian in the backround. That is the height of CEE rep that show has...
Knowing that Lauren asked for 'armour that has never been seen before' and that both Aslam and Lauren confirmed she had to sign off on every decision proves that she was directly responsible for the ballsack armour. She said no to literally all armour that looks like armour so Aslam must have been throwing anything at the wall to see what stuck and she chose from those options.
I have a very hard time placing much, if any, blame on Henry. The writing is absolutely atrocious overall. I think the overall story they went with is too all over the place and unfamiliar at times and Henry simply aims to fix what he can as he watches (and now has to be a part of) such a bastardized story about his and everyone's beloved Witcher. True, maybe you could say that his interfering has caused havoc for where the showrunners and producers wanted to go... but why would I care more about, or consider their side, when it's clear that they would turn this franchise into a half-assed generic fantasy story using some of the best elements of the source material to carry them thus far? Henry, is the ONLY reason that I kept watching until they revealed more about where they were going with everything in season 2. Don't get me wrong, there're a few characters I do really like in the show and some minor plots, but overall, things are weird in this version of the Witcher.
Time for Warhammer!
I feel like Cavill started stepping in because there was so obviously no clear or strong direction or planning. When leadership is weak/untrustworthy/incompetent, don't be surprised when someone with integrity and pride for their work steps in to try and get things back on track/into a better situation. I'd quit, too. Everything about this production from the very start sounds like a complete shitshow.
They sold him on the idea of book-accuracy and then were surprised when he pushed back on them changing Geralt.
Even if henry played geralt the way the writers wanted him to, it still wouldn't have really helped the show. His character offered something that felt familiar when everything else is fan fiction, and not well written fan faction at that
I'm not sure if , like you said, Gerald would be better if Henry would have played Geralt as the writters intend him to play that the Character would feel more consistent/shine more... You said it in one of your last videos in regards to Yennefer. Anya on one Side does a great Job acting in my opinion but she played Yen as the writters intend and you said it yourself. That was an inconsistent mess and a butchering of the Character. I think what Henry did was just preventing them to butcher his Character the whole way through and kept some integretie what gave us atleast some memorabale Moments. It's like you said at the end of that chapter. With Henry leaving the show, one of the few enjoyable parts of the show is leaving. If the writters Vision had played out we would have next to none (i mean look at Blood Origins... we saw what they produce if nowbody stands up to them...)
el video no tiene ningun sentido, culpa a todo el mundo menos a los escritores, es como que todo salio mal porque nadie les quiso hacer caso. Y tenian razon en hacerlo.
The writers allegedly expressed outright disdain for the books, even mocking Sapkowski's work. If I were Cavill, and was promised that the show would attempt to faithfully adapt the novels, there would be no compromise from that point forward. Come hell or high water, I'm fighting that shit tooth and nail, playing Sapkowski's Geralt as faithfully as I can until they give up or they fire me. I think the marketing campaign begging fans to keep watching because "He's still Geralt in season 3" says everything it needs to about who was right regarding the creative direction of the show.
This is so interesting, everyone talks about that fight scene, the talking to his horse, and the grunts as some of the best parts of the show. Cavell’s improv is what viewers like the most.
If Blood Origins was any good.. your points and logic would have made sense. But defending the show ruiners has no basis.
Exactly! In Blood Origin, everyone was oriented with De Barra's writing team and the show was unwatchable, repeating the same sins as the Witcher show but without being able to hide it behind Henry Cavill. I really wonder Blood Origin was greenlit...
Which makes me believe he wanted to save the series from the aweful direction.
It was the games that won the hearts of the people.. who then took on the books after.
@@jo3yhoang& also in many cases novels won the hearts many years before games, for my brother, his friends, and me for example. I'm currently playing, I'm in the beginning of it finally, the first Wiedźmin vid game, it's a fairly nice piece of fanfiction, but sometimes I'm almost getting sick of the amount of praise this good fanfiction is getting outside borders. So it's a matter of perspective, I suppose. XD nothing wrong with that, all the taste in media is subjective anyway and not that important. 😊
Exactly!
@@martar.2085
Where are you from?
The popularity of the Witcher outside of Europe & especially Poland is most definitely 90%+ from the games. The novels only caught on in the United States after the games were released, especially the Witcher 3.
The fact the writers badmouthed the source material and the two female leads made fun of Henry for wanting a faithful adaptation makes me side with Henry not the writers
If the show runner’s vision could have worked why wasn’t Blood Origin a success? Lauren wasn’t bound by the lore in the books or games or a difficult leading man (Cavill) who is not in alignment with that vision. I wonder how much Henry really knew about the show runner’s vision when he committed to seven seasons? If the narrator’s arguments are correct then season 4 of The Witcher should survive Henry’s absence (Since the focus is going to be on Yennifer and Ciri.) and become a successful series. 🤨🤨🤨
You're misinterpreting him. He's not saying the showrunner's version would've worked and blaming Henry for the show sucking, he saying it would probably be more coherent if Henry's vision didn't clash with the rest of the team. It would still be a shit show, but the tone and characterisation would be less all over the place perhaps.
@@hawkins347 Again if that's true then the tone and characterization of Blood Origin would've been a lot better than it (unfortunately) is.
Sakharov was on board the Witcher up until the shoots started for the pilot and according to Hissrich his vision was a big part of what the show is today. So it seems like both Sakharov and Cavill (and I guess the rest of the cast) were sold a different idea of the show than the one they ended up with. Also according to Sakharov, Cavill is the best thing about the Witcher Netflix. While filming the pilot the showrunners changed the script 9 times and still they couldn't come up with a solid story. And as we can clearly see in terms of plot, consistency is not their strongest point creating canon that they don't follow from season to season or episode to episode. Or throwing whole scenes away , pivotal scenes for the characters, during shooting or editing because of lack of time/budget. I don't think Cavill took the creative liberty on Geralt because he just wants to 'cosplay' the character from the games but because he tries to work around the bad material he has to work with and fix what he can. The show is a mess, erasing everything unique about it, losing most of its inbuilt fan base either books or games. The only draw people had to the show was Henry and his portrayal of the character. He tried to follow Hissrich vision and we ended up with the grumpy snowman edition of Geralt, who Henry's changes saved from becoming a caricature. Judging by how many times, the audience has been lied to by Lauren Hissrich, I can easily assume that this is her approach with the people she works with too.
Sakharov leaving is what bothers me most to this day. Or maybe not, since you're right about the different visions, but I think his was definitely better and I maybe it would have worked more with Henry's. Of course, Lauren said a lot too, but I think it's clear from what he said that he definitely put more time and effort into understanding another culture. First episode of the whole series is still probably the best for me, despite the weird edits. Even if maybe it hadn't worked out, his vision and effort would have been worth a shot, and different approach would always find its audience. As it is, it's just generic American fantasy in every way.
Yeah.
Purple was regal/imperial because it was rare and expensive. Why, oh why, would anyone in hiding wear an outfit that will get you robbed?
I don’t think that writers way of making Terminator trope would’ve worked even without Cavill remaking the scenes. Because if he only “learns” to care for Ciri why would he be all broken up over Renfri dying and wanting “to save all next princesses”? That wouldn’t make sense. That trope would mean that he should be like a robot up until Ciri but we can see even in the writing how he contradicts himself.
..and the scene when Geralt meets Ciri would make even less sense. Not only would they have met for the first time, one of them would be uncaring 'terminator'.
Hell, if he's just indifferent and uncaring and without a friend in the world, why even get involved with the Renfri situation at all? He does it in the books because he doesn't want innocent people to suffer and because he's friends with one of the townsmen, but that wouldn't work in the show. Showrunner intended Geralt should've just not given a damn and left town.
If all of your marketing is focussed on how dedicated Cavill is to Geralt and the source materiel, then _changing the character_ makes no sense. Don't tell the superfan to play a book accurate Geralt and then be surprised when he pushes back on your alternative vision. Don't sell the fanbase on your Book Accuracy and then wonder why they don't like it when you tell a completely different story.
Cavill and the fans were sold a bill of goods that the show-runners had no intention of delivering.
The Lesser Evil was totally screwed up. They could have fixed it with a few lines where he realized that Renfre was going to execute townspeople. My husband didn't realize that and I had to tell him. There was no reason to release it without making that clear. The battle still could have been away from the main townspeople where her team was getting ready. Just having the fight where townspeople were wouldn't have made that point. It needed to be explicitly said. I don't think there is any way to just show that unless her team was already pulling people aside. And that would have ruined the end where the townspeople turned against him. They turned against him because they didn't know he was protecting them. In town, in a side alley, doesn't matter. It had to be said and it wasn't said and the episode made me think the show runners weren't doing a good job. It was the most important point of the situation and they didn't show it.
The exact same scenario played out with Cavill’s Superman. He obviously deeply cares for these heroes, but he stuck bouncing between directors who don’t even like the characters. My heart breaks for him.
My conclusion is that Lauren is a good talker - but like a pie without filling
The only worse thing than the butchering of these amazing characters is how long we'll still have to see it happen without getting a proper adaptation of these stories (or even a good original story at this point), while Netflix builds what seems to be a sort of long-term Witcher universe that doesn't have nearly enough depth to justify its existence. Maybe one day the rights will fall onto better hands, or maybe its better for it to simply not happen again... at least for a long time, I don't know.
I'm a fan of 2000s Wiedźmin (Hexer) tv series myself, try it. I'm rewatching it rn, it's very charming.
Dude don't try to pin the blame on Cavill. The audience was there for the witcher from the books and games not whatever crap Hisrich and her team could write. That's why those who watched the show had overwhelming praise for Cavill above and beyond any aspect of the show. If you want to see what this garbage writing team is capable of without the source material watch Witcher Blood Origins. The march to the grave for this show began with there huge deviation from source material. You're argument is that their shitty original writing might have worked if Henry went along with it instead of trying to push the good writing from the source material.
Most people who watched this show came from the games, so I don't blame Henry at all for trying to steer in more of those elements gamers would be familiar with. Seeing where this show has gone, I don't have a whole lot of faith in the writers original vision
He is not blaming Henry Cavil for making the show a bad show. He is pointing out that Henry refused to give the showrunners the oppurtunity to show us the version of Geralt that they wanted and that was a small part of why the show failed and a big part in why Hanry left. Obviously the reason why the show is garbage is because everything is portrayed as either good or evil with no development to make it easily digestible for a audiance of idiots. For example the first time we see yen as a child she is a cripple. Please please feel sorry for her audiance. its lazy writting and the pay-offs that come from the books are not capable of hitting as hard as they do because they take the easy way out when showing the characters so that an audiance of fools can be told what to think about every character in an instant. The same thing is happening in video games like god of war where you have the boy telling you over and over how to solve a puzzel as you encounter it because they are afraid the audiance is too stupid to be able to put the pieces together themselves. You also see this with other netflix shows where they spend the first 10 minutes of the episode recapping the last episode because from their perspective the audiance too stupid to remember what happened last week.
@@kylemenos Imagine if they revelead Yen's past through a flashback when Geralt realises who she used to be during the genie fight like in the book, and then have the next episode be Yen-centric about Aretuza. That probably would've been better.
Oh oh oh! I'm the guy Lauren is replying to with regard to Yennefer and Fringilla having "the same energy!!!" I'm SirAlphamale!!! Hihihihihi! Man, that discussion Lauren and I had was crazy.
Love these videos, by the way.
1:36:30 This dismissive way she talked about the composers, who were only doing their jobs and phenomenally at that is astounding.
The saddest thing is that hissrich's approaches are good but are nullified by a lack of understanding of the genre itself. She also rejected Netflix wanting her as a writer because she never had anything to do with it or likes it in general. It wasn't until Netflix told her she was free to do whatever she wanted than she agreed, which should be a big red flag for itself...
Something tells me it's hard to find people who won't question your vision when said vision is shit (and a lot of hate for the source material)
Yup!! Quite so.
You can't question vision that ain't here.
If the complaint is the writing is being torn in too many directions and not a singular vision, because of Cavill. We can already see what singular visions like Rings Of Power and Willow have wrought on adapted fantasy properties lately. As Alien Platypus has covered in his other videos the production team did not get the fundamentals of the characters and story. Too many productions have had NO CHECKS AND BALANCES on lore, story, characterisation vision and just congratulated themselves at how clever they think their writing is while huffing their own farts. No one wants to hear what they have worked so hard on sucks, but it's the only way you improve your art.
I have to disagree with this chapter in your series. Particularly regarding placing blame on Henry. This guy is a major movie star and if it wasn’t for his love for the games he wouldn’t have taken on a Netflix show like this. They needed him to make the show huge from the jump (as opposed to hiring some unknown new actor and climbing up the ratings on their like everyone else) and they promised him whatever they could to get him to agree. Whatever agreement they came to to get him on board clearly lead him to believe he would have a say in the production, character and the direction of the story.
If those misleading promises lead them to having a bad dynamic on and off set then that’s on them. Completely. You don’t get to propel your show off the back of someone’s stardom, limit their ability to work on other larger projects due to the fact that they’ll be busy working on your show and rely on his fan base to bring in views. Only to tell them they can’t play the character they signed on to play. You simply can’t.
I have a hard time believing that Henry would be so arrogant and pompous to just walk in and start demanding changes from the writers and producers just to satisfy his personal preferences. I believe he was trying to salvage the character he agreed to play.
And I think this point is only further proven by the fact that he will not only be starring in the Warhammer project, but he’ll also be producing it. You can tell he got burned and refuses to have it happen again. He will attach his name to it, and he will have control.
I disagree that Cavill's idea of Geralt is what made Lauren's plot not work. He could have done everything she said exactly like she said it and it would still be a piece of ****, just a piece of **** with less internal inconsistencies.
So, basically, a massive leadership problem. That quote about collective writing and how Mrs. Hissrich says she's mostly sitting in the writer's room taking everything in - all that sounds as if she didn't actually know how to write decent stories.
I agree. That was a huge red flag for me. How confusing and frustrating it must have been to work for her as a writer or creator, and then later get blamed for all!
I think the point that you’re missing is that the writers fundamental vision of this character and show is flawed. Terribly flawed. And their desire to develop Garalt into that character was going to take so long that they would lose most of their audience along the way.
Exactly!!
Disonance between Henry and showrunners would probably be overcome if it was the only significant difference in creative vision but the video pointed out this kind of clash existed between multiple layers of production.
that woman only talks about herself and her struggles and how nothing was on her , not taking responcibility for anything and hiding behind the staff. it really feels like a woman whos doing a project just to boost her career with something she can put on a resume.
I fundamentally do not understand this show. It was made for Netflix to capitalise on the fact the games sold 50 million copies. However seemingly no one in the production even cared for either the games or the books. They disrespect both, treating both with an air of distaste and Henry Cavill is in this horror where he is torn between the two, he clearly approached the character thinking he was playing the game Geralt with the writing depth of the book version. Unfortunately he can't achieve either, I don't hold it against him that he is distancing himself from this dumpster fire of a show.
Very interesting take on Cavill, the Blaviken fight scene, Stregebor dialogue and Nivellen story were however my absolute favourite parts, without Cavills hard pull I doubt I would have made it through season 2. I get however that that makes Hissrich's mediocrity shine through like wet shit on white linen.
Great video.
He is literally blaming Henry for production proplems
@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hlYup.
I think it is a really interesting take. I have no doubt Henry and Lauren butted heads on his lines and the general view of the story. I think Henry might have gotten the false understanding that since he is the main lead and his passion and love for the character is so great that Netflix would work with him to make the show how he would want it...and that was a big mistake. While I loved his scenes initially, I take a look back at them and realize that he really did try to be the game and book Geralt we know and love, but those scenes made no sense in the context of what the actual story was, which made things awkward. The story the writers were trying to tell did not fit with those moments and unfortunately, I feel they didn't stand up to him when he constantly made those suggestions. Instead of making the scenes better as Henry may have intended initially, it was a shift in mood that felt unnatural for the story.
Don't get me wrong, I am not fond of the story that Lauren and the writers made and would much rather see Henry's version, but the way Henry went about it imo is wrong. This has been seen in lots of works where an actor is so passionate about their role but they end up sabotaging, undermining the production and then ending up with sub par material. Henry should have gone with the flow and then left anyways since obviously they aren't following the source, instead it feels like production has a reason to have him leave. I feel it would have been better if Henry was a producer of the show instead of the lead role. Don't get me wrong, he does remind me of Geralt; however, I do think he isn't the perfect Geralt from the books or games...he is way too handsome lol.
@@carontorliak2760You are basically saying that you loved Blood origins, and would have preferred that dross over faithful adaptations of the books and games.
Don't get it twisted. Geralt of the books is the same as the games. Trying to separate the two as different depictions is pure BS.
Cavill was trying to save the show. To make something better than Blood origins.
Thanks to Lauren Schmidt Hissrich and shills we won't get a live action Witcher movie or series in a long long time, if ever.
BS like blood origins is a dime a dozen.
@@Ewil.Bluetooth
1. What part of the second paragraph tells you I would like blood origins?
2. Geralt's depiction has literally changed from game to game so saying its the same as the books is idiotic. They are different since geralt in the games isnt canon.
3. Blood Origins was a piece of crap, worst fantasy show I have ever seen, but at least Henry isn't a part of that and can't be blamed for its performance.
My point was Henry tried his best to play the Geralt he envisioned from the books and games while the showrunner had a different take. This mismatching of visions made the show and characters seem disjointed and for the worst. There is only so much Henry could do to make sure his part is well done, the rest of the show can easily affect the belivability of his performance.
Cavills efforts to patch the writing and direction of the show even slightly was not his job and maybe flawed at times but considering the mess that was the entire production he did a decent job (also his preference for the games vision of the witcher was at least familiar and brought many game fans to the show)
Cavill also did read the books he just did it after playing the games and being introduced to the show(if he played the game at the time of its release him not playing the expansions is easily explainable) so while his vision of the witcher is very much influenced by the games he did bring up alot of book influences,lines etc to the show. Especially considering the show is based on the books not the games.
So while in a normal production Henry's patching would have worsen the show his efforts aided the show more then hurt it.
This is the part in this series were you lost me. It is not Cavilles fault that his lines and ideas don’t fit well. That’s entirely the showrunners resposibility and shows how Lauren fail to be consistent.
You have to listen to the whole thing. He explains it is everyones fault but mostly the producer
@@Sparticulous i did and I stand by my comment
Why the conflict did cause a disjointed show, with an actor that just did what he was told without question the show would have been like Blood Origin. Henry's character was the only good aspect of the show. Even other actors that gave good performances had weak writing. If the writing had been well planned, then Henry would have ruined it but that's not the case. The little bit of chaos he caused was still above the quality level of the show as intended. The worst thing of all is Lauren Hissrich went on Twitter and promised the fans the show would adhere closely to the books and in interviews said she liked that Henry was so passionate about being accurate, and then secretly tried to rewrite the entire story without understanding the story. To change something and make it better you have to understand why it's there. Otherwise it's like a new manager getting rid of a system that nobody can explain in short attention span form only to discover that it was a crucial safety measure after disaster happens.
I feel a lot of criticism this video gets about “blaming Cavill” and what could have been if he’d stuck to what was written in the script was made by folks who didn’t actually finish this video. There was zero chance for ANYTHING to go right if the chaos, lack of coherency and abdication of responsibility by the show runner are as A.P. describes. It seems like a group of people of talent were thrown into an impossible situation, given no guidance and no time, and somehow a coherent finished product was supposed to spring forth?! It’s a goddamn miracle ANY film or TV show is any good given the thousands of ways any one thing can ruin a production. For those who stuck to the end of this video, you’d learn that Henry more than likely, just like everyone else on set, was just doing his best to salvage something out of a disastrous and directionless situation.
One thing tho: Geralt DID love that damn horse
Maybe it would've helped to split the information into several shorter videos, and when talking about Cavill, mention that he had to work under time pressure + script rewritten 9 times
I feel like blaming "gamer" side of Henry Cavil was more wrong rub here. Especially if video game actually was ok adaptation of Geralt from books. There is nothing to blame to be a fan, but everything should be blamed for lack of vision
@@PentaHousenOf course it rubs people the wrong way, when he straight up lies to our faces. Geralt in the books and the games are the same person. The games all 3 of them are beloved by the fans who read the books first, simply because it's such a faithful continuation of the book saga.
It's ludicrous to claim that Henry would have acted differently if he had not played the games, and only read the books.
Dishonest and clearly a way to throw some shade.
5:02
It sounds like they wanted to write the Mandalorian more than the Witcher, to me at least, based on how all that was worded
The problem, nowadays, is that trying to "flesh out" a character over the length of a series can't be done when you only have 8 maybe 9 episodes in one season. The days of having 15 to 18 episodes per season is a thing of the past due to production and logistical costs.
Heavily disagreed. You have movies that are two or three hours long and the characters are still fleshed out. And other amazing series with great characterisations that have short seasons (like Succession or the first seasons of Game of Thrones with 10 episodes each). If a show can't create a convincing character in around 9 hours of screen time, then it will never be able to do it (you don't need to know everything about the character straight away either, you just need to make their story and motivations believable, and then give them some space for further development in later seasons). It's all down to a consistent vision and direction for the character, and then the skill to lay it out in the screenplay.
I've been waiting for a screen adaptation of Amber Chronicles for decades. Witcher made me change my mind: being a much more complicated universe, I now know Amber will be 99% butchered.
Thanks for the amazing work you did with the video!
I have to say I do agree that Cavil wasn't the right fit for the Netflix's show due to the showrunner clearly having a different vision for the production from him. My curiosity lies in how forthcoming they were with their intentions though. My impression, esp in light of the Alik's comments, is that they promised one thing and then side blinded him with another after he was under contractual obligations so in a sense, any "rebellious" actions on his part could just be seen as him trying to obtain some of what he was promised. Him obediently following the showrunners wouldn't have changed anything anyway because they're just flat incompetent. Ultimately it remains on the showrunners for hiring people who expected to work on a faithful adaption over more flexible individuals. Any "problems" Cavil contributed to production are ultimately a drops in a bucket compare to the ocean of BS created by the show runners.
Lauren Hissrich is the mastermind of this disaster; however, I think that in retrospective we can see the blame for the mess between Hissrich (Show runner), NetFlix themselves for hiring a show runner that is CLEARLY not experienced with fantasy shows. In fact Hissrich turned down the job offer because she has no fantasy experience and doesn't read it. It was Netflix that pushed hard to this woman to run the show and money talks so Netflix got what they wanted eventually. The Writers. The writers on this show actively disliked the source material, joked about how they hated the books and this is the major tragedy, How can you expect people with NO PASSION no FIRE for their project to succeed? We know that one of the writers that quit stated that they hated the Witcher and joked about it in the writers room.
Cavill has literally NO BLAME in the failure of this show in my opinion. This is where I diverge from you Alien Platypus who blames Cavill for some of the reason it failed.
I really, really want to know why they hired Hissrich. Why hire someone who by their own admission didn't feel they were a good fit because they don't do fantasy? Nevermind, her initial decline of the project.
The production of this show was a clusterfuck from the very beginning to the very end
They clearly promised cavil a different role than what they forced him to do, it’s obvious because why appease him so much
I love these vids, please keep them coming, going through them is like a much needed therapy for my witcher loving soul!
If the showrunner can't question herself, how can she guide characters through questioning themselves? She can't, and it shows in how she's replaced Yennefer with herself and never lets anyone challenge her.
Thank you for not fanboying over Henry Cavil and actually having the balls to criticize him
Y'know, that lady says that she doesn't like to micro-manage, but it sounds like there wasn't really any management going on at all.
The idea that Geralt being completely robotic would be preferable to the few bits of humanity Cavil was able to force into the show doesn't track with me. Sure, Henry's additions create inconsistencies in the intended direction the writers wanted, but what the writers wanted to do is what made the show's story garbage in the first place. The biggest issue with Henry's casting was that Netflix should have hired him as the show runner instead of the lead. I'd take CDPR's version of Geralt over T-800 with a sword and a horse any day.
Edit: also the fact that LH didn't want to actually base any of the armor or costumes on historical period examples is just so idiotic to me. One of the best parts about the games is you actually feel like you're stepping into 15th century Poland but with monsters and magic.
Pretty sure the biggest problems with the show had little to do with Geralt. The show runners didn't want to make The Witcher, they wanted to write their own story with the cover of The Witcher to attract watchers.
What happened here rests completely on the showrunners. Changing Geralt's characterization from the books was needless. All they had to do was condense some scenes that are more book format-friendly (wouldn't translate well to show format).
Was Henry's behavior disruptive? Sure, but he wasn't doing it just to be a dick. He tried his best to steer the show in, at least in my opinion, a much better direction, and that just never panned out with what Lauren had in mind. Then we saw what a show that allows her full, undisrupted control looks like in the form of Blood Origin, and I was quickly made even more grateful that she was challenged as much as she was on the main show.
In my view, the entire production could've benefited from collaborating with CDPR's writers in terms of taking pointers & advice.
Not outright carbon copying. But when you look at some of the original content CDPR contributed to Sapkowski's universe, such as Gaunter O'Dimm (arguably the most menacing and mysterious villain in all of Witcher), and compare that to Lauren's horrific original contributions (basically all of Blood Origin)... You get a real good idea of which writing team had more love & respect for the material, and frankly, more talent as well!
Henry said from the beginning that he wanted to stay as close
To the source
Material
As possible. Writers has a different take and didn’t tell
him. He leaned toward video, writers pulled from the clouds, and the production becomes a mess.
The proof that henry was not THE problem to his character is that the others, who actually believed/respected what was written, with no book or game bg, are still shallow lost characters. Was Henry wrong in changing things from the script? Kinda, yes, he's there to act, not to direct, but hes not the one who fucked Geralt up, the character was fucked up by the script
So to your point, the showrunners' vision is to show his character development and they did this by focusing more on the other characters on a show titled after him?
The man was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t. The biggest theme permeating all aspects of this show and its problems is Hissrich lifting her hands and saying "it wasn't my fault" because she wanted to be "hands off"... which is a diplomatic way of saying she wanted to take credit for any successes, pass the blame for any failures, and do as little work as possible in the interim.
What kind of writer worth their salt has "I don't know, do what you think is best" as their default setting? What kind of showrunner delegates herself right off a cliff and yet still manages to micromanage everything so poorly that nothing gets done in a timely fashion, let alone well?
So then you have a Cavill type, who gives off the vibe that he at least wants to be a leader if the situation calls for it, if not an outright leader, and he's got a bunch of amateurs running around ruining a good opportunity with incompetence *in addition* to having dishonest pitches and disparate visions once they've sold him on the project. They liked it just fine when they could defer to him on some things because less work. But once he started being the boss to counteract their refusal to both stand by their decisions or cede to his wishes and make a more game-specfic adaptation, it ruffled feathers. And what did they do when he left? Blame him for the show being a disaster the same way they did everyone else who jumped ship. Like Hissrich just showed up to an apartment on fire with a stack of pizzas instead of lighting the fire herself with her laziness. Shocked that it didn't work out, I am.
You can't do anything successful on the back of the precept, "I dont know what I want, but I know it's not that." You either have a vision or you have a vacuum sucking all the life out of a creative enterprise because you don't want to make a wrong move.
And look at the end result. A show full of wrong moves, run by someone who seems incapable of making a single cogent, thoughtful decision, hired by a company that would likely sacrifice puppies, kittens, and their own grandmas for a buck rather than pay people a fair wage. I wonder how much they paid or underpaid Hissrich for this mind-boggling level of poor work ethic and decision making.
Disaster.
Anyway, thank you for this video. It was a wild ride and I'll have to watch the rest of the series on this because it's very nuanced and informative about how this adaptation bs keeps happening every time, especially with Netflix.
I hated the s1 costumes so much and I had never seen the concept art, which does look pretty interesting, especially the dryad stuff, cause it looked distinct from the games. Most of Anyas dresses looked like they were not made for her, accentuating her neck too much or not sitting in a flattering manner. I did criticize these costumes a lot because they looked so off for the world and in how they fit. I never knew the costume designer had so little to work off and was given such a hard time, this does put things into context and does explain a lot. (But I hate that rope dress with fierce passion. Everything about it. I always imagine book Yen wondering if the purpose of the dress was to hang oneself in a pinch. It was a torment watching it for the first chunk of S2.)
I really like your take on HC. I admire him for wanting to advocate for fans and sticking to the source material. But I also felt the narrative for when he left was set a bit too well. I was seeing debates lately about involving actors more in the writing and development of their character, and I do think that can make for a good strategy in creating unity with actors and writers and lead to a unified vision. I don't think writers should be married to their writing. But at the same time, that shoukd have been hashed out at the very beginning. It feels as if everyone involved should have been much more clear up front about what they wanted and to what extend they wanted to be involved in which processes.
I really love those books and after the mess of s1 I had hoped that once they got to the linear story of the saga they'd have an easier time. But after seeing an interview where they mentioned how they were gonna cut one of the most important chapters from BoE because Triss had the runns, I lost all hope. Reducing the chapter that sets up one of the key philosophical debates about neutrality, and the elves and nonhumans plight, to just a woman being sick in an embarassing way, was baffling. Especially cause they had no issues doing that to Yens knight in the Bounds of Reason episode. Instead of tweaking this sickness issue or rewriting it, they cut the whole story. I don't know if they do actually make fun of the books or hate the source material, but they for sure are very dismissive of it. They dont seem to want to actually adapt it. Which is evident from the constant backpaddling. After HC left they said they wanted to move closer to the books, only for a couple months later to admit they are going even further away.
You have done a stellar job combing through interviews and you set up your arguments really well!
The mens costumes are worse. The all wear night gowns. None of them seems to wear fitting, well made clothes.
It's the job of a showrunner to create a coherent show. That means they're responsible for inconsistent themes, contradictory messaging, uneven writing styles and tones, meandering narrative through lines, bad characterization, and everything else that goes into this medium of storytelling. That Hissrich failed at her job is her fault. If you follow enough TV productions for long enough, you see how the same writer, actor, or director can create fantastic work or terrible jumbled messes based on who's in charge, and how good they are at knowing when to rein in those creatives and when to let them play. It's a skill that not everyone has, and Hissrich obviously doesn't.
If she wanted a scene to be a certain way, she should not have let an actor re-write it and then allowed it to be filmed differently. Just like if a writer wrote a morally abhorrent scene, she should not have kept that in the script if she didn't want it there.
Hissrich is very good at saying things, and then doing entirely different things. I don't know if she's constantly lying in interviews on purpose or if it's just that her mind is changeable or she's too used to Hollywood insincerity as a default to realize it, but the thing she created does not show that she had a coherent, detailed, carefully crafted vision. To assume that the chaos of the production is somehow a result of people not falling in line with her master plan would require believing that she had such a master plan, and I don't buy it for a second. Now, if she did have one, but was unable to execute it, it would still be her fault because that was her job. If you want to believe what she says, you can choose to believe it when she said she wanted each writer to express themselves in their own way, and that she thought Henry's re-write was better than the script, so apparently she thought what the people under her were doing was great and in no way undermined the story, in which case, again, if the end result is bad, it's her fault. Either the show's bad because she got what she wanted, or it's bad because she wasn't making sure she got what she wanted, but either way, the outcome is the same, and the responsibility is hers.
this was incredibly comprehensive I can’t imagine the research and time it took to parse through all of this and put it all together with nuance well done
It's hard to blame Cavill for the disaster that is this show when you watch Blood Origins, where they got to do everything they wanted and it was god awful. Cavill was the only reason anyone watched this show.
If they wanted to develop a character, they should have picked a period in the lore where he wasn't already developed. How hard is it?
It'd be like doing a show with Frodo in the undying lands and showing the audience how he learns the power of mercy and friendship. HE ALREADY DID THAT!?
If you wanted a reinterpretation of Geralt and to move the chronology of his development then why not just admit you don't want to follow the books? Why cast an actor who had that as a main stipulation?
These new age directors just want to do some original work and only got the opportunity to direct an existing story because they haven't EARNED the right to make an original work in the eyes of the holywood overlords who'd rather bank on something already written.
There are like 500 modern female directors in holywood now who are being handed the reigns in productions that already have the story written for them either in pre established lore or an actual full story. Their job is to put it on the godamn screen, not to change it or add their vision.
Once they can prove they can do that, then studios can fund new IP's where they can inject as much creativity and if they want; also girlboss modern values as they like and people can choose whether they like it or not.
Instead they set themselves up for failure by changing content where the audience has an existing expectation of what it will look like. No one is going to like the things you changed or your original take. If they did, you could just make your own damn original content and put ANY IDEA YOU LIKE into it without any backlash for anything other than your lack of storytelling ability.
Holywood doesn't actually believe in these creators. They will only pump out something with a pre established fanbase and expected return. These directors clearly don't want to roll with what they've been given. They want to put in their own political and artistic ideas.
Fine. Do it. Just pick your own story instead of ruining shit I already like then blaming me for not liking this original/modern hybrid monstrosity.
They can't even restrain themselves when depicting ACTUAL HISTORIC EVENTS. They want the clout and intrigue associated with telling a pre-existing story THAT HAPPENED while wanting to place their own artistic ideas and values in as well. Cleopatra? The woman King?
You want to do a fictionalized version of some story and tout female empowerment? GO AHEAD. Just don't try to market it as if it actually happened that way with real recorded events. The same way that you market adaptations which are essentially just complete rewrites but with some names kept to fool people.
Some quality of life and adaptation changes ARE NECESSARY but have some restraint or people will notice your carelessness. If a change doesn't enhance the entertainment value, it shouldn't be in there. Simple as that.
If the people who don't like your content are just arguing in bad faith then why don't you release original content with no limitations and see how that does? You won't because the only way any of the stuff you have touched has made any money is when people were expecting something different when they paid admission.
You're not going to trick people into liking your content by smuggling it in to content that was originally succesful because of your lack of involvement.
And if you are happy for art to suffer for the good of humankind by undoing all the toxic ideas of the content paying audiences used to enjoy and essentially giving us no other option you are probably only empowering the toxicity by giving them an excuse to dislike your progressive ideas.
Your lovely ideals CAN exist in art. I support your right to express that. But don't do a bait and switch. It either acknowledges that you have no talent or that the world inherently is too set in it's evil ways to allow you to have a voice without ruining shit we like.
25:30 honestly this is a bad example the joker has been played by a lot of people in the past. This was the first time Geralt is introduced and if blood origin is anything to go by if not for Henry Cavill who wanted what we all wanted, a good Witcher tv series, and it's 100% on the producers for trying to do whatever they want with an existing IP and making it worse (and I'm excited to see what he's gonna do with 40K hopefully it's good)
I imagine Henry signing for a netflix witcher and finding out he's a background character because the producer wanted to make a jennifer show using geralt as bait for fans, and wanting to course correct the titanic. I appretiate his attempts of trying to change aspects of the show and not letting a blood origins stain in the main franchise, and yeah, he maybe was a pain in the ass but what wlse can you do if you are binded by contract and wanting to do right by the fans?
What makes Geralt a great character is that he was never an unfeeling mutant, that was always just a misplaced stereotype about witchers he hid behind that allowed others to go on believing mutants were inhuman, unthinking, unfeeling killing machines they could call freaks and hate, he was always an emotional, intelligent, moral person and I love his dialogue in both the books and the game it's the reason why I love him as a character, but the show writers inability to write dialgoue for him left him as such a flat, boring character that I didn't like Netflix Geralt at all, the "strong silent type" who doesn't have a bond with Yen or Ciri or his fellow witchers or speak more than a few syllables now and then isn't Geralt to me, the character I enjoyed was an introvert sure but he also had a heart and was sarcastic and loved his friends so fans had a reason to root for him and hate the people trashing mutants unjustly
Given how the show failed to create new, well written versions of the other characters not named Geralt for their specific vision...I have a VERY hard time even entertaining the idea that the show would be any better if they found an actor for Geralt who was willing to play along with the showrunners' vision. If the rest of the show outside of Geralt is anything to go by, the problem with the series isn't that creative differences prevented the showrunners from following their vision to the letter. The problem is that their vision for the show was, quite simply, awful from the beginning. That's why Geralt still manages to be the most entertaining part of the show for both book/game fans and show only viewers alike, despite feeling completely out of place in the show. The show surrounding him is such a trainwreck that even an out of place version of Geralt still feels like a breath of fresh air when measured against everything else, and everyone else on screen.
I feel compelled to comment on the Renfri-situation, one of my favorite short stories from the books.
To me, Cavill's view does not pose a problem at all, since what he states is pretty much the lesson Geralt takes from the events that unfold, that much is made pretty clear in the story itself. The lessons a reader may take from this (and in fact, my own view of events) may be entirely different, and that is perfectly fine. To me, the bigger issue is that Hissrich apparently has no understanding of the supposedly main character of her show whatsoever. The issues addressed in The Lesser Evil are pretty central to Geralt, who he is at that point and how he makes his decisions, so this is not a small problem either.
Suffice it to say that we seem to agree that the episode is pretty terrible and barely makes sense if you do not know the source material.
I also think it’s important to mention the writers for Netflix shows aren’t given the time or man’s power to handle a series of this size or most series for that matter. They use those tiny rooms where the higher freelance writers to write an episode or two and then never bring hat team back because then they would have to pay them higher wages and for more hours. Writers aren’t allowed on set so any mistranslations from writer to director could be a result of that on top of having a constantly shifting team of writers. A cohesive vision just isn’t possible under these conditions and that’s one of the moan reasons the wga strike is happening.
The main problem is that the show runners wanted to tell Yennefers story. It’s sad to see. Henry Cavill was amazing but had a different views than show runners. Thanks for the unbiased review. It sounds like a bad mix
I’ve worked in collaborative projects which sound very much like this - no strong steering hand- weak managerial miscommunication (usually ending in scapegoating) and frankly amateurish contribution from some.
I think you needed to have a season of original content for Geralt to get there before you started adapting the story in the books.
You cannot have geralt interacting with siri and yennifer while still trying to find himself as a person.
The books work because of who geralt is at the time and you can’t change that without changing the relationship between the characters
This. Honestly, I feel like they should have led with Witcher: Blood Origins in a more literal sense, giving us a season to get to know Geralt as he becomes the rounded character from the books. Sure, you lose the impact of subverting expectations of the mercenary monster hunter, but in exchange you get the flexibility to give Geralt an arc AND set him up to work like the books do in the story proper. I think it was a missed opportunity.
Hissrich says she likes collaboration and placing "trust" in people she hires, but that enables her to blame others for anything that gets criticized.
It seems like everyone should have sat in a room and discuss a unified vision instead of the shit show
Basing his voice on Doug Cockle's iconic performance is 100% the correct take, especially when Cavill can execute it this well. How is that a problem?
this is a great video series that highlights all the little things than can go wrong with a production and how it all adds up.
I really appreciate the effort
Lauren loves throwing praise at herself and how well she's done and how much she's done and how much of the show and the writing and the selecting and the choices were made by her then literally turns around as soon as someone questions something to go "Well I didn't do that, it was that guy over there, it was that women over there, it wasn't me, it was them, they made the mistake"
This is such a horrible take on the whole situation with Henry. You clearly don’t get Henry’s point of view. You essentially theorize that it’s the games he wants and at one even say the character is truly “just a softie” - even if there true, the games did this *much* *much* better than what Lauren and co.’s vision vision of “deconstructing” Geralt. The dude is 80 years old at the *start* of the story. He’s clearly a grizzled character who has seen and interacted with the myriad of human experiences. You’ve clearly just conveniently forgotten what that means. What a ridiculous take on things.
Feel like this guy never even touched the games.
This isn't terminator. This is The Witcher.
Yes, Henry and the writers were not in sync. Yes, that caused confusion in the overall theme of the show. But it the fault of the writers. It's like hiring a BAD baseball coach (the writers - because their vision is mediocre at most) for a team of NBA players (Henry), in order to win the championship (deliver a good show).
They had EVERYTHING at their fingertips: solid story (the books) and the most enthusiastic and qualified man for the role. An Netflix got the NBA team a freaken bad Baseball coach. Wtf?? Stop defending them.
"I am the one who sits back and takes it all in [in the writers room]." Which is code for 'I tell other people what to do with no concept of what they or I am supposed to do.' She's a benchwarmer made into a boss with an ego that causes her to expect to be the new Peter Jackson.
Love reading the comments all just wanting to shit on Netflix and Hissrich despite your video giving a pretty nuanced take on the problems with Cavill as well. Anypoo. Great video. It's especially weird that they all keep calling things "woke" considering Sapkowski is a feminist and while I think Hissrich's adaptation isn't very good, it's still going along with a lot of the actual themes of the books, just in a bad way.
This adaptation is really not going with the themes of short stories & novels that much, imho. Imho even the first one, from 2000s (of which I am seemingly an only fan, at least online, ehhh), takes a bit more of the themes from the books.
But to each their own. And I had no idea that Andrzej Sapkowski's a feminist, but well, he has many flaws, what's one more (I'm not much a fan of feminists, sometimes, because I'm a happy woman).
Anyway, yeah, to each their own.
There's no point swinging the other way because Hissrich can't be anything politically on the left with her actions. And the result is clearly illustrated as having bigoted implications for so many of the people she'd self congratulate for "representing".
Your fatal flaw in discussing Cavill's vision for Geralt, the show and how he probably should never have been hired, is that you assume that the show would have survived to season three and spawned multiple spin-offs without Cavill.
You have acknowledged how flawed and rotten Hissrich's vision for the Witcher is, and her incompetence as a showrunner, but then you turn around and put blame on Cavill for pushing back, and not sticking with her vision.
Cavill can be criticized, but make no mistake, he was the reason why the show has gotten this far. Him and CDPR's video games. As great as the books are, it was the games that made the Witcher a global brand. And when the games stayed true to the books as much as possible (unlike the show), I don't blame Cavill one bit for playing into them with his character.
moral of the story: these guys evidently never played dnd (or other TTRPGs) and aren't familiar with session 0's and didn't meet to discuss where the story was going. HC could have offered his knowledge of game lore, the writers/directors could explain why they made the changes that they did, and they could come to a compromise and get everyone on the same page
Except all the fans who wanted to see The Witcher live action and not generic fantasy....
Great video man, thanks for insights
Honestly, I kinda feel bad for Sapkowski. Half of the people in the production wanted to do their own thing, the other wanted to adapt the games. But no one actually wanted to adapt his books.
Because they are too stupid to understand the books...
The problem is when the writers of this show has the mentality of children. The only thing they love is the word "fuck", and they have zero talent writing a full storyline. Henry had nothing to do with the plots involving Redania, Cahir, the elfs, Yennifer, Ciri and butchering of Dandelion. Even if the showrunners vision was not supposed to be book accurate all, they STILL didn't make a decent show with characters that Henry didn't "interfered" with by changing script, improv, etc.
So I don't agree with you on the Cavill stance. Not at all.
so bottomline, the IP shouldnt have gone to netflix :/
Watched the whole thing on a four hour long road trip. Fine work, sir.
I really can't express how much I love these videos and how informative they are. They made me realize how little I knew about the rushed production and damaged behind-the-scenes development of the Witcher, which was a whole new revelation for me. Thank you so much.
Netflix please learn fom this gigantic mistake. You could have it all IF you put a TEAM of creatives who'd love and respect the original source before thinking of any deviation. A lack of accountability with the higher execs doesn't bode well for future projects.
Enjoying this series so far, but cant agree with a lot of this chapter. I've just listened to the first two parts and you make it pretty clear the blame for the show not being a good adaptation are the writers and showrunners. Yet in this chapter the shows short comings are because Cavill wanted to do his own version of the character?
I see what you're saying about his improvs or what have you, and if he did improv takes then there is 100% certainty that they still had script accurate takes also filmed. Since we have already established the fact that the showrunners edit the episodes, they get the final choice in what is shown to the audience. We only know of a couple of examples where his improv were used in the show, in which case the showrunners CHOSE to use those takes over their own.
I would also say that I sort of agree that in Cavill probably did use his position in the industry to strong arm some decisions that were made on set and his passion for the role probably fuelled that. It feels to me that he was promised something early on and he wasn't getting that throughout filming and refocused his efforts in the show to make sure HIS job was being done to the best of his ability, screw whatever else the makers had planned. At that point I would be too, making sure my work was the best I could offer, instead of being forced to sacrifice his artistic integrity. After what happened to him with the Superman role, I can hardly blame him.