He's right, Cavill's Geralt was perfect. The Witcher author is still a bit of a wanker, though.
this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2023
205 points (98.1% liked)
The Witcher
700 readers
3 users here now
Witcher books, Witcher games and everything else Witcher.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Why is he a wanker?
Sapkowski doesn't/didn't believe that video games are a worthwhile medium of telling a story.
When CDPR wanted to make the first licensed Witcher game, he wanted a one-time payment of about 10k USD or thereabouts because he didn't believe they'd be successful. When they made it big with The Witcher 3, he sued them for their profits, claiming that the licensing contract only covered a single game. They settled the lawsuit, and I think they have a new contract that gives Sapkowski part of the profit.
Dmitry Glukhovsky, author of the Metro novel series, publicly called him an old fool for this on the dead bird site. He's probably right, the games are what propelled his books to worldwide fame.
Lol I only heard of the Witcher because of the games.
I dont remember everything, but hes been complaining nonstop about how CDPR is ruining his franchise, said they robbed him of money because the games are worth more than the rights he sold to them, something about how they butchered the books, and continues to claim the books are far more popular than the games.
Idk there was a lot and i might be misremembering things and forgetting others
Yeah he basically said the game would never make money, so he took a relatively small lump fee up front rather than a percentage royalty. Then the game was very successful. I'm pretty sure he did alright with the sequels - by accounts CDPR were really gracious - but he still moaned a lot.
He then kept saying that the games had no influence on the success of the franchise - nevermind that hardly if any of his books were even translated until after the games, in particular after gamers explicitly asked for them to be translated.
That alone doesn't make him a wanker, but his overall attitude does. He never had anything good to say about the show (and hey, maybe he was right there in the end..) and I feel like the main reason he likes Cavill is because Cavill is always adament about staying true to the source material.
It's basically a classic case of loving the art but hating the artist.
Maybe he should write better books lol
He created one pretty-decent character, but he would have 0 real fame if it weren't for CDPR
I don't remember him saying the games butchered his work. From what I remember je doesn't care for them beyond the payout they "owed" him. He doesn't understand the medium at all and afaik doesn't know much about the story in them. And even if he did, it's all on the level of fan fiction to him (which is fair - he is reportedly writing another book from the universe and I understandnhe doesn't want to be tied down by things someone else wrote in his universe)
I think you're giving him too much credit. He absolutely does understand the medium, he just trash talks it. CDPR wanted to give him a percentage royalty, but he demanded a lump fee up front. Then the game was successful and he had egg on his face. Ever since, he's claimed that the games had nothing to do with the success of the franchise.
Ever since, he’s claimed that the games had nothing to do with the success of the franchise.
Which is hilarious, because when 99% of people are talking about the Witcher, they do not connect him or his novels with it at all.
For all the wanking
He's published. I'd wank too.
I can only imagine how giddy this has to make Henry Cavill. This has to be the greatest stamo of approval.
greatest stamo of approval
Henry Cavill: "Have mercy!"
Sounds like Netflix writers are a little too eager to make this work their own.
But this begs the question: why didn't they just write an original series instead of seemingly doing everything "wrong"? (quotes because artistic works technically are entirely subjective, but objective categories of 'right' and 'wrong' probably should supercede this).
It's clear the public wants a faithful portrayal, but that's the one thing the writers just aren't willing to do for some reason. I can't help but wonder why
Because there's no built in fan base with original work. They wanted quick easy money.
That's the answer anytime people do this with existing IPs. They're just using the already built in fan base for fast cash.
IP abuse.
But this begs the question: why didn’t they just write an original series instead of seemingly doing everything “wrong”?
You answered your own question, friend:
Sounds like Netflix writers are a little too eager to make this work their own.
They basically character assassinated and/or completely changed everyone, including the female characters they were trying to prop up as being strong (Yennefer in the Netflix show is a screaming whining mess who can’t do anything on her own and dicks over Ciri while Yennefer in the books and games takes shit from nobody, especially when it comes to Ciri and Geralt). They even (surprised I am even saying this) blackwash Fringilla in the Netflix show, whose entire point in the books is that she looks and is extremely similar to Yennefer during a time when Geralt and Yennefer were broken up. Them expanding on Istredd (except for the weird pedophilia with a young Yennefer) and the head teacher of ~~Hogwarts~~ Aretuza was pretty cool, but the writers literally shoehorned their own issues and takes on the show with no respect to the original material.
Fwiw, they also bullied the hell out of Cavill on set for trying to keep things faithful to the books and playing the games because A) he’s a Witcher fan and 2) it was helping him get into character.
But this begs the question: why didn’t they just write an original series instead of seemingly doing everything “wrong”?
These people don't care about the material, medium or the consumers - they care about the money. Nothing else. So if someone has an unique and brand new idea for some fantasy series that doesn't have an already established fanbase, it is a gamble to actually produce it ... will it flourish or flop? You simply don't know beforehand, because the public hasn't reacted to the idea yet.
Buying the rights to an already existing franchise with an already existing fanbase and then producing a series about it, that's a lot more likely to make money - plus free advertisement as the already existing fanbase will make sure to share and discuss the upcoming series, internet tabloids will churn out articles about rumors and leaks and the like, and especially when you then do something outrageous like deliberately butchering the story and/or characters or shoehorning your own shitty ideas into the series, you will get even more media coverage for free: angry fans sharing their opinions online, people watching episodes because they couldn't just believe how bad everyone else said they were (or watching them so they could join internet discussions about how bad it was), memes, blogs, discussions ... you get the gist.
To those people, there is nothing "wrong" with that. On the contrary - it makes money, so it must be right. Fuck the source material. Fuck the author. Fuck the fanbase. Their opinions don't matter als long as they stay agitated and keep consuming what we dish out - that's their mindset, and producing deliberately shitty shows even helps with that, as paradoxical as it may sound at first.
This just can't make sense to me. Wouldn't they make more money if they didn't piss those fans off? Wouldn't the easy way out be to stick to a script that's already written and just adapt it?
Angry outrage = free advertisement = more people hear about it and might be willing to throw money at them. Especially if there is already a huge existing fanbase.
Just a random example:
-
Avatar - The Last Airbender: The version of M. Night Shyamalan, not the upcoming movie. Widely regarded as one of the worst ever adaptions of an existing franchise, hated by fans to the point that it's become a meme to outright deny this movie ever existed. But it was spread far and wide across the internet just HOW incredibly bad the movie was. Box office: $319,713,881 worldwide.
-
13 Assassins: Came out in the same year (2010) and is praised as a faithful but very polished and pleasing adaption of an older movie, generally favored by critics and fans alike. High ratings everywhere. But that story didn't spark public outrage, and most people today won't even remember that this movie exists, unlike the shitty AtLA movie. It is a well-made movie overall, faithful to the "source material", loved by fans, but only grossed $18,689,058 world wide, roughly 17% of what the Avatar movie made in the same time frame.
Note that I am not saying that pissing off the fanbase is guaranteed to yield good results, and neither is it sustaineable in any way - but the execs aren't interested in building something that will make them money in the long run. They're only interested in quarterly profits and immediate results they can present to their shareholders and investors, and creating outrageous bullshit is more likely to make a bunch of people aware about what you created (albeit in a negative way). Once the public starts to lose interest again, they can just grab the next franchise and repeat the process.
It’s clear the public wants a faithful portrayal, but that’s the one thing the writers just aren’t willing to do for some reason. I can’t help but wonder why
Because Netflix doesn't pay for the writers to solve problems. Have something that doesn't translate well to screen? Don't try to figure out to how to make it work—get rid of it. Have a character arc or plot point that moves "too slow" for modern audiences? Good news, that's an action scene now, and there's a gun, or a sword... or a gun-sword!
Sure, the writers can be blamed sometimes (especially when they are also the show runner... cough Davis S. Goyer cough), but a lot of the time, it's studio pressure to make something quickly and that follows a formula that some exec believes is the golden ratio of shit to slick.
On the flip side of this, I wish Peter Jackson and co had been given the proper time to do the hobbit justice.
I at least agree with the 3 movies approach. In an effort to make it a kids book, Tolkien naturally rushes over scenes that aren't kid friendly. Like how the battle of the five armies is like a paragraph and can be summed up as "holy hell that was crazy and amazing, the giant eagles even showed up and carried the day. Too bad you were unconscious the whole time, eh Bilbo." I'm not sure Hollywood audiences would appreciate that kind of climactic fight bait and switch.
To be fair, if you did a faithful adaptation to the Witcher books, you'd end up with a story where Geralt and Ciri barely have any scenes, he's constantly chasing and never catching her for 5 seasons.
Changes needed to be made for the book translation to work, I just think they made too many
Cavill could've been the Sir Ian McKellen to Gandalf, the William Shatner to Kirk, the Harrison Ford to Indiana Jones.
He could've been immortalised as being Geralt. When people picture Geralt, they could have pictured him.
But the producers and writing staff fucked it all up. I still feel a bit jaded every time I hear about this absolute trainwreck of a TV series.
They fucked it up when they decided to write their own trash instead of staying true to the source material.
This kind of arrogance is prevalant throughout the whole sector and seriously ruins any attempt at making a proper translation of beloved franchises to any form of filmed media.
The moment I hear "the writing team has taken some creative liberty" I am 100% done with your new project. The only thing you need to do in order to litterally print money is hire a scriptwriter and director that has read and is a fan of the source material. No need for writing teams, no need for adaptation to different audiences, just cater to the fans or fuck off.
With Cavill leaving the show the only redeeming quality is gone and I doubt many people will be interested in sticking around for the whole crash and burn that will follow.
Ehhhh sometimes I think you need to make some changes to adapt the content to the new medium.
The Witcher 3 changed a bunch of stuff, it's still a great game.
The Lord of The Rings trilogy changed a lot and IMO they are absolute masterpieces.
The difference being, as you say, you need people involved that are fans and care about the existing art, rather than trying to make it their story out of ego or because they think the original story is dumb.
Those people aren't there for the story, the characters, the universe that was lovingly crafted by the original creator, they just want a popular IP they can stamp their name on and steal the success of. And it doesn't work.
We have leaks of writers from this show literally mocking the original writings. That's a travesty. No wonder they completely butchered the show.
I do agree with you there. Though I don't consider small changes that are weighed carefully to be in the same category as completely inventing (controversial) story events that go directly against established canon. Or even plain retconning some things to make your half-assed original story work.
Disney fucked this up when they acquired the Star Wars IP: They took a beloved world where lots of authors have spent years carefully and respectfully filling plot holes, expanding upon the source material and they had to wipe it all and do their own thing.
Tons of concepts that neatly integrated into the established canon at the time thrown into the trash, and for what? A clever take on space nazis? Bleeding crystals? A movie we've seen before? Grumpy, whiney grandpa Luke? A ripoff of Jacen Solo that was executed badly? "Somehow Palpatine Returned"? All of these concepts sound wild because they are, they make no sense.
The only sane piece of grey area canon we have left is the whole Old Republic era (both the KotOR games, comics, books and the MMO). If those get the same treatment I'm never touching anything Disney again.
I think everyone does... except the bitch in charge.