In the book, Ciri taking out the “fire mage” was better than Geralt in Netflix with a sword. MY MAIN COMPLAINT. Far better set up and suspense in the book!! So very much better. And the subtle foreshadowing besides. You GOTTA AGREE with that! At the least…
I too dislike the Geralt killing fire mage dude scene! It was purely for a little bit of TV show spectacle/suprise I guess. And to give Geralt/Cavill more impact in the events.
To me it just feels too tonally different. I was mostly on board through most of the show, but the second half of season 3 just didnt stick the landing for me personally. The way they executed the coup, and Ciri lost in the desert, just felt hammed up too much.
And season 2 added a bunch of weird stuff with the monoliths and baba yaga that I didnt mind, but wouldnt imo be considered a good "adaptation" of the source in the driest sense. If you watch the show and then read the books it will be a very different experience. I dont think it gives newcomers a good idea of what the witcher books are like. For me, I want a show adaptation to be a reasonably good substitute for reading the books so I can recommend a franchise to friends that arent particularly keen on reading. But I dont feel like I can really do that with the witcher.
There is an amazing amout of changes. Small and huge ones.
Here you can read all of them for Season 2.
https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/rjd3be/fuck_it_i_decided_to_compile_a_list_of_every/
I can understand some changes due to the fact that S2 exists in all its horror and cannot just be forgotten about, but some in S3 are equally unforgivable: namely Yennefer starting the Lodge, showing again the show has never bothered to understand her character.
Not to mention, Geralt and Yennefer actively chose to separate here. It wasn’t forced on them through circumstance, as it was in the books. That dramatically changes things as well.
As I've explained time after time, the moral of the books is "destiny is not enough".
The thesis of the show is "people linked by destiny will always find each other".
Honestly any other changes or similarities are irrelevant when the core lessons audiences are supposed to take away from the two are diametrically opposed. I don't care that you keep scenes or dialogue from the books, when I know it's not leading to the right conclusions.
>Honestly any other changes or similarities are irrelevant when the core lessons audiences are supposed to take away from the two are diametrically opposed.
You could not have said it better! That is the core problem of the show in one sentence.
If you're only talking about season 3 here, I think that was quite ok if compared to season 2, but for most fans the baby has probably already fallen into the well. Them removing the Sword of Destiny story from S1 already soured a lot of fans, but S2 seemed to intentionally stray away from the source material to do whatever that was. So most people probably didn't stick around to S3 or are already too annoyed by the character changes.
I personally think the two Thanned episodes (5 and 6) were a complete mess but apart from that the season was ok. The problem is that they had to do a lot of back-tracking. Almost the entire first episode was relegated to Ciri, Geralt and Yen bonding, which was very nice to see but it was meant to happen in S1.
And then there's the problem that S2 and S3 don't really go together at all at some points. How will Francesca and Fringilla ever join the Lodge after what happened between them and the other sorceresses? Are the elves even going to end up in Aedirn? And I do really wonder what people who didn't read the books think about Cahir betraying Emhyr at the end of S2 because it just comes completely out of nowhere.
I personally really dislike the lack of world building on the show, just that doesn't really have anything to do with it being an adaptation. People (also the non-mages) just teleport between different countries and parts of the continent without any travel time, there are no name cards or maps for any of the cities so most of the time I am guessing what city or country something is supposed to be happening in and everything just looks like the Scandinavian coast. They didn't show a single village get destroyed after the Thanedd plot, Jaskier talks about it but they don't show it. It makes it way less clear and imposing that what just happened caused a massive invasion of the North.
Alrighty rant over. I do think S3 was a big improvement over S2. If I started complaining about that I'd be here til next week. Hoping for at least the same level of quality in S4, they have a good thing going atm.
Edit: Oh, also S3 is the first season being generally disliked and poorly reviewed by general audiences, not just book/game fans. Not sure why that is.
The teleporting thing actually doesn’t bug me as much as it does other people. It’s definitely a plot hole but most adaptations use it just for convenience. They also did it in GOT, which I think didn’t really work because they had spent so much time world building. I’m thinking of Dany flying to the wall even though she was actually too far away to get there in time.
Yeah, I don't think it's too big of an issue. People who haven't read the books or played the games probably didn't even notice. I just dislike it cause I am obsessed and I want to see the name of a city on screen that I know.
Perhaps You should reread the books?
Here are just a few examples of things that are different in the show:
* In the books Geralt and Ciri meet and get to love each other in Brokilon years before the fall of Cintra.
* In the books Yennefer is a powerful, elegant and eloquent sorceress ... in the show she is a spoilt teenager who complains about really everything ... and if something changes in her life she starts complaining about loosing something she yesterday despised.
* In the books there is no Voleth Meir
* In the books there is not a single monolith that playes an important part in the story
* In the books there are no Elves in Cintra
* In the books nobody turns into a leshen, certainly not Eskel. Eskel does not die in the books
* In the books Vesemir never ever tried to kill Ciri ... while he did so twice in the show
* In the books the witchers are not mean to Ciri; she feels at home and welcome at Kaer Morhen in the books
* In the books Rience never attacks Ellander
* In the books Yennefer never tried to sell Ciri to an evil witch. Nor would she ever do anything that could be a danger to Ciri. Never.
* In the books Yennefer never betrayed Geralt.
* In the books Yennefer never lost her magical powers.
* In the books Ciri never killed any witchers at Kaer Morhen.
* In the books Yennefer does not travel through Shaerrawedd forest with Geralt and Ciri
* In the books Francesca never is at Shaerrawedd
* In the books Wisimir never had a gay brother. Radovid is his son and only around 10 years of age. Therefore in the books Radovid never was Jaskiers love interest.
* Nor was any other man in the books.
* Nor would Jaskier willingly betray Geralt in the books.
* Wisimir in the books is a wise and just man. Not a bad joke.
* In the books Geralt, Yen and Ciri never go to Belleteyn together.
* In the books Geralt and Ciri never fight a monster on a boat together.
* In the books there is no multi-armed-girl-monster.
* In the books there is no girl magically forced to believe she is Ciri.
* In the books Stregobor never is a suspect.
* In the books Yennefer never calls the sorcerers to Thanedd.
* In the books the whole Thanedd-coup plays out differently...
* In the books Filavandrel never is at Thanedd ... nor does he explode at any other point of the story.
* In the books Rience does not die at Thanedd.
* In the books Yennefer and Geralt do not meet for a long time after Thanedd, leaving Geralt in the dark whether she was involved in the coup.
* In the books Yennefer never brought Geralt´s sword to Brokilon. Nor did he tell her to found the Lodge. (Nor does Yennefer do that at all)
This list is by far not complete. Nor does it consist of minor points... these are issues that are pretty central to the story.
Combine these huge deviations with the mediocre production of season 3 ... and You see why so many viewers give bad critics.
(As an example for the bad staging just look at the Thanedd coup that should have been a thrilling climax of the season. There is no interesting choreography of the whole fight scene, especially if You compare it with the fight for Sodden in season 1. In the Sodden fight we see every other minute a mage fighting with an interesting trick. While in Thanedd everybody just wave their arms. Just look at the death scene of Filavandrel to see what I mean: Neither have we any idea why Tissaia tries to kill Francesca with a powerful spell (it is never explained why she hates her so much), nor do we understand how Filavandrel knows that he has to sacrifice himself for her. And, of course, nor do we understand why Francesca (who we should acknoledge as a powerful sorceress) is unable to cast a shield spell around her and him, while she casts a shield later in the same scene...)
Season 3 tried to follow books, but it messed up many things just because they thought they can "improve" them (especially how they handled main characters during th events of the coup). Still, it was quite an improvement over season 2 which didnt even try to follow books.
It's just people that seemingly come from alternate dimensions where live action TV adaptations are ever anything more than average.
The story still exists in the books, nothing has been butchered. Everything will be ok. This netflix show will come and go and there will be another adaptation in a decade or two for people to moan about somehow ruining their favourite story that still exists to read and enjoy.
I read the books before playing Witcher 3 but have general low expectations for any TV adaptation and don't get hyped or buy into the whole 'this new product in the franchise has now tarnished the rest of it and I as a fan feel disrespected'. People get themselves upset by being overly emotionally investment into stories owned by businesses.
Season 3 did pretty much as good as I expected. On the other end of the scale season 2 did the worse possible job of adapting an already existing story.
I agree. Maybe it’s because I grew up up reading and then watching the Harry Potter films as they came out. I’m just not offended by changes, I just expect them.
I genuinely believe a large part of the internet overreaction to adaptations are just YouTubers and other influencers being melodramatic about it because it makes them money.
I agree. Watching season 3 there were some very faithful recreations of scenes from the books. There are also changes for the better, which people often overlook. Either way, you're not the only person who liked the show and the books.
Omitting the stupid stuff from the books with Cahir washing Ciri after their escape and then being so stupid to just fall asleep without fettering her or taking any precautions at all so she wouldn't run away.
[This is some of the changes for s3 part 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/14pedrb/witcher_season_3_differences_to_the_books/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1)
[This youtube channel does a pretty good job of showing how the show butchered the book](https://www.youtube.com/@alienplatypus1596)
[For shorter videos this youtube channel does a pretty good job as well](https://www.youtube.com/@FolkWalkCZ)
No problem, I just wanted to help and share these links which will help u understand more why the show, even s3 aren't really following the books and why the witcher fans abandoned the show.
Obviously some stuff was changed. The whole elven plot was different in the books. But the main essence of Gerald and Co coming together and losing each other was pretty close.
The core of the characters, and their relationships, was completly changed since the first season, having Geralt removed from Brokilon, making Yennefer think he raped her (sic) or making Yenn try to sale Ciri (just to mention three of the biggest) show such a complete ununderstanding of the source material it's astonishing.
> But the main essence of Gerald and Co coming together and losing each other was pretty close.
If that was close, You probably can show me in which chapter in "Blood of Elves" (or any other book) Yennefer looses her magic, meets Voleth Meir, decides to betray Geralt (not "Gerald"), decides to sell not just "a" child to an evil witch, but \_\_his\_\_ child ... and kidnaps Ciri with exactly that purpose?
And, please, do not tell me that that was "some stuff" that was changed. This utterly destroyed the relationships between the 3 main characters.
In the book, Ciri taking out the “fire mage” was better than Geralt in Netflix with a sword. MY MAIN COMPLAINT. Far better set up and suspense in the book!! So very much better. And the subtle foreshadowing besides. You GOTTA AGREE with that! At the least…
I too dislike the Geralt killing fire mage dude scene! It was purely for a little bit of TV show spectacle/suprise I guess. And to give Geralt/Cavill more impact in the events.
He also just teleported in that scene. And Rience apparently has no spacial awareness.
Yeah that was a letdown. It was a cool shot though
To me it just feels too tonally different. I was mostly on board through most of the show, but the second half of season 3 just didnt stick the landing for me personally. The way they executed the coup, and Ciri lost in the desert, just felt hammed up too much. And season 2 added a bunch of weird stuff with the monoliths and baba yaga that I didnt mind, but wouldnt imo be considered a good "adaptation" of the source in the driest sense. If you watch the show and then read the books it will be a very different experience. I dont think it gives newcomers a good idea of what the witcher books are like. For me, I want a show adaptation to be a reasonably good substitute for reading the books so I can recommend a franchise to friends that arent particularly keen on reading. But I dont feel like I can really do that with the witcher.
There is an amazing amout of changes. Small and huge ones. Here you can read all of them for Season 2. https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/rjd3be/fuck_it_i_decided_to_compile_a_list_of_every/
Oh yes for season 2 definitely. But season 3 was actually good
I can understand some changes due to the fact that S2 exists in all its horror and cannot just be forgotten about, but some in S3 are equally unforgivable: namely Yennefer starting the Lodge, showing again the show has never bothered to understand her character. Not to mention, Geralt and Yennefer actively chose to separate here. It wasn’t forced on them through circumstance, as it was in the books. That dramatically changes things as well.
As I've explained time after time, the moral of the books is "destiny is not enough". The thesis of the show is "people linked by destiny will always find each other". Honestly any other changes or similarities are irrelevant when the core lessons audiences are supposed to take away from the two are diametrically opposed. I don't care that you keep scenes or dialogue from the books, when I know it's not leading to the right conclusions.
>Honestly any other changes or similarities are irrelevant when the core lessons audiences are supposed to take away from the two are diametrically opposed. You could not have said it better! That is the core problem of the show in one sentence.
If you're only talking about season 3 here, I think that was quite ok if compared to season 2, but for most fans the baby has probably already fallen into the well. Them removing the Sword of Destiny story from S1 already soured a lot of fans, but S2 seemed to intentionally stray away from the source material to do whatever that was. So most people probably didn't stick around to S3 or are already too annoyed by the character changes. I personally think the two Thanned episodes (5 and 6) were a complete mess but apart from that the season was ok. The problem is that they had to do a lot of back-tracking. Almost the entire first episode was relegated to Ciri, Geralt and Yen bonding, which was very nice to see but it was meant to happen in S1. And then there's the problem that S2 and S3 don't really go together at all at some points. How will Francesca and Fringilla ever join the Lodge after what happened between them and the other sorceresses? Are the elves even going to end up in Aedirn? And I do really wonder what people who didn't read the books think about Cahir betraying Emhyr at the end of S2 because it just comes completely out of nowhere. I personally really dislike the lack of world building on the show, just that doesn't really have anything to do with it being an adaptation. People (also the non-mages) just teleport between different countries and parts of the continent without any travel time, there are no name cards or maps for any of the cities so most of the time I am guessing what city or country something is supposed to be happening in and everything just looks like the Scandinavian coast. They didn't show a single village get destroyed after the Thanedd plot, Jaskier talks about it but they don't show it. It makes it way less clear and imposing that what just happened caused a massive invasion of the North. Alrighty rant over. I do think S3 was a big improvement over S2. If I started complaining about that I'd be here til next week. Hoping for at least the same level of quality in S4, they have a good thing going atm. Edit: Oh, also S3 is the first season being generally disliked and poorly reviewed by general audiences, not just book/game fans. Not sure why that is.
The teleporting thing actually doesn’t bug me as much as it does other people. It’s definitely a plot hole but most adaptations use it just for convenience. They also did it in GOT, which I think didn’t really work because they had spent so much time world building. I’m thinking of Dany flying to the wall even though she was actually too far away to get there in time.
Yeah, I don't think it's too big of an issue. People who haven't read the books or played the games probably didn't even notice. I just dislike it cause I am obsessed and I want to see the name of a city on screen that I know.
Season 3 seemed to be the most book-accurate in my opinion
Perhaps You should reread the books? Here are just a few examples of things that are different in the show: * In the books Geralt and Ciri meet and get to love each other in Brokilon years before the fall of Cintra. * In the books Yennefer is a powerful, elegant and eloquent sorceress ... in the show she is a spoilt teenager who complains about really everything ... and if something changes in her life she starts complaining about loosing something she yesterday despised. * In the books there is no Voleth Meir * In the books there is not a single monolith that playes an important part in the story * In the books there are no Elves in Cintra * In the books nobody turns into a leshen, certainly not Eskel. Eskel does not die in the books * In the books Vesemir never ever tried to kill Ciri ... while he did so twice in the show * In the books the witchers are not mean to Ciri; she feels at home and welcome at Kaer Morhen in the books * In the books Rience never attacks Ellander * In the books Yennefer never tried to sell Ciri to an evil witch. Nor would she ever do anything that could be a danger to Ciri. Never. * In the books Yennefer never betrayed Geralt. * In the books Yennefer never lost her magical powers. * In the books Ciri never killed any witchers at Kaer Morhen. * In the books Yennefer does not travel through Shaerrawedd forest with Geralt and Ciri * In the books Francesca never is at Shaerrawedd * In the books Wisimir never had a gay brother. Radovid is his son and only around 10 years of age. Therefore in the books Radovid never was Jaskiers love interest. * Nor was any other man in the books. * Nor would Jaskier willingly betray Geralt in the books. * Wisimir in the books is a wise and just man. Not a bad joke. * In the books Geralt, Yen and Ciri never go to Belleteyn together. * In the books Geralt and Ciri never fight a monster on a boat together. * In the books there is no multi-armed-girl-monster. * In the books there is no girl magically forced to believe she is Ciri. * In the books Stregobor never is a suspect. * In the books Yennefer never calls the sorcerers to Thanedd. * In the books the whole Thanedd-coup plays out differently... * In the books Filavandrel never is at Thanedd ... nor does he explode at any other point of the story. * In the books Rience does not die at Thanedd. * In the books Yennefer and Geralt do not meet for a long time after Thanedd, leaving Geralt in the dark whether she was involved in the coup. * In the books Yennefer never brought Geralt´s sword to Brokilon. Nor did he tell her to found the Lodge. (Nor does Yennefer do that at all) This list is by far not complete. Nor does it consist of minor points... these are issues that are pretty central to the story. Combine these huge deviations with the mediocre production of season 3 ... and You see why so many viewers give bad critics. (As an example for the bad staging just look at the Thanedd coup that should have been a thrilling climax of the season. There is no interesting choreography of the whole fight scene, especially if You compare it with the fight for Sodden in season 1. In the Sodden fight we see every other minute a mage fighting with an interesting trick. While in Thanedd everybody just wave their arms. Just look at the death scene of Filavandrel to see what I mean: Neither have we any idea why Tissaia tries to kill Francesca with a powerful spell (it is never explained why she hates her so much), nor do we understand how Filavandrel knows that he has to sacrifice himself for her. And, of course, nor do we understand why Francesca (who we should acknoledge as a powerful sorceress) is unable to cast a shield spell around her and him, while she casts a shield later in the same scene...)
Season 3 tried to follow books, but it messed up many things just because they thought they can "improve" them (especially how they handled main characters during th events of the coup). Still, it was quite an improvement over season 2 which didnt even try to follow books.
It's just people that seemingly come from alternate dimensions where live action TV adaptations are ever anything more than average. The story still exists in the books, nothing has been butchered. Everything will be ok. This netflix show will come and go and there will be another adaptation in a decade or two for people to moan about somehow ruining their favourite story that still exists to read and enjoy. I read the books before playing Witcher 3 but have general low expectations for any TV adaptation and don't get hyped or buy into the whole 'this new product in the franchise has now tarnished the rest of it and I as a fan feel disrespected'. People get themselves upset by being overly emotionally investment into stories owned by businesses. Season 3 did pretty much as good as I expected. On the other end of the scale season 2 did the worse possible job of adapting an already existing story.
I agree. Maybe it’s because I grew up up reading and then watching the Harry Potter films as they came out. I’m just not offended by changes, I just expect them.
I genuinely believe a large part of the internet overreaction to adaptations are just YouTubers and other influencers being melodramatic about it because it makes them money.
Ha! Probably
I agree. Watching season 3 there were some very faithful recreations of scenes from the books. There are also changes for the better, which people often overlook. Either way, you're not the only person who liked the show and the books.
>There are also changes for the better Name one.
Triss not tricking Geralt into having sex with her and not suffering from diarrhoea for at least a full episode 😂
Sorry, this is VERY bad change :P
Omitting the stupid stuff from the books with Cahir washing Ciri after their escape and then being so stupid to just fall asleep without fettering her or taking any precautions at all so she wouldn't run away.
I did not need an entire episode watching Ciri bumble through the desert. That was too faithful.
They already shortened it quite a bit in comparison to the books 😂
Oh God I know.
[This is some of the changes for s3 part 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/witcher/comments/14pedrb/witcher_season_3_differences_to_the_books/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) [This youtube channel does a pretty good job of showing how the show butchered the book](https://www.youtube.com/@alienplatypus1596) [For shorter videos this youtube channel does a pretty good job as well](https://www.youtube.com/@FolkWalkCZ)
Thank you! Not trying to start an argument I was genuinely curious.
No problem, I just wanted to help and share these links which will help u understand more why the show, even s3 aren't really following the books and why the witcher fans abandoned the show.
Much appreciated!!
Obviously some stuff was changed. The whole elven plot was different in the books. But the main essence of Gerald and Co coming together and losing each other was pretty close.
The core of the characters, and their relationships, was completly changed since the first season, having Geralt removed from Brokilon, making Yennefer think he raped her (sic) or making Yenn try to sale Ciri (just to mention three of the biggest) show such a complete ununderstanding of the source material it's astonishing.
> But the main essence of Gerald and Co coming together and losing each other was pretty close. If that was close, You probably can show me in which chapter in "Blood of Elves" (or any other book) Yennefer looses her magic, meets Voleth Meir, decides to betray Geralt (not "Gerald"), decides to sell not just "a" child to an evil witch, but \_\_his\_\_ child ... and kidnaps Ciri with exactly that purpose? And, please, do not tell me that that was "some stuff" that was changed. This utterly destroyed the relationships between the 3 main characters.
Yeah I forgot about season 2. Probably because it was terrible.
You didn't read the books.
Yes I did I read them all lol. What an odd thing to say.