#thewitcherseries

Someone who has read the books can't help but compare the series to them and some will easily judge the adaptation based on how faithful it is. But a novel or short story is not the same thing as a screenplay. A 100% depiction of a book isn't possible in most cases, because a TV show is a different medium that communicates with its audience in a completely different way.

It also has a limited runtime, so it is necessary to make some changes.

The important thing is to extract the essential information from the source material and to find the best possible way to bring that information onto the screen. This review, while of course comparing the series to the books, is not about faithfulness.

It rather is about how well Netflix's „The Witcher“ catches the essence of Andrzej Sapkowski's book series.

The season is an adapation of the first two books „The Last Wish“ and „Sword of Destiny“ which consist of short stories surrounding the witcher Geralt of Rivia, while also establishing the world in which they take place, as well as setting up characters who play important roles in the following books.

Geralt, like all witchers, is a professional monster hunter with special physical and magical abilities. Ciri, daughter of Pavetta and granddaughter of Queen Calanthe of Cintra was promised to him as a contribution due to the Law of Surprise, which allows a witcher to take anything the person who hired him posesses, but did not expect. Years later, Cintra is being attacked by the Empire of Nilfgaard. The city is being destroyed but Ciri manages to escape.

We also learn how Geralt gets his infamous nickname „Butcher of Blaviken“, how he meets the bard Jaskier („Dandelion“ in the books) and a lot of backstory for Geralt's love interest,Yennefer.

After being heavily wounded by a bunch of ghouls, Geralt gets saved by a merchant who brings him to his home, where he finally finds Ciri.

The casting choices are very good. I like Henry Cavill's portrayal of Geralt. He totally nails the stoic, often grumpy attitude. The light hearted bard Jaskier balances it out, making the two of them the perfect comedic duo. With the overall cast I have no complaints, except the fact that Ciri might be a little too old. But that's a minor pet peeve and it is no rarity that child characters from books get aged up due to possible inappropriate scenes.

Same thing with the special effects. The monsters are very well depicted, though I sometimes had different pictures in mind, especially for the striga and the dragons. Again, a minor pet peeve.

Now I need to talk about the biggest problem the show has: the timeline.

I know this has been discussed a lot, but it is one of the great weak points and I would like to point out what the series in my opinion could have done better.

People who aren't familiar with the source material will have trouble keeping up.

It doesn't really help that Witchers age much slower than regular humans and that Geralt looks the same in every timeline.

Yeah, the show was meant to be something different, something challenging, something that doesn't want to spell everything out for the audience.  A noble intention.

But when I google The Witcher I get tons of sites explaining the timeline of the series as a result. To me this is a clear sign that something went wrong.

Take Lord of the Rings – The Two Towers for example. The book consists of two parts of which one describes the complete journey of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli, while the other one tells us about Frodo, Sam and Gollum. Both parts take place at the same time so it makes complete sense for the film adaptation to switch between the two parts chapter by chapter. But you can point to every scene in the movie, telling exactly where in the book it takes place. It is all well structured and it works. During the Witcher series I missed this kind of structure. Sure, most of the time I could tell which part of the book was adapted but if I hadn't read the books before I probably would have been totally lost.

Geralt is the titular hero but this doesn't mean he always needs to be the protagonist. I would have preferred to see some episodes more dedicated to a specific character's perspective. For example one episode could have told the story of the invasion of Cintra through the eyes of Calanthe, while also telling „A Question of Price“ through flashbacks.

Yennefer's backstory, which is not really discussed in great detail in the books, could have been told in a similar way, slowly revealing the mystery of how she turned from a disfigured young lady with a heart of gold into this enigmatic, beautiful sorceress and what price she paid.

Overall Geralt's story could have been shown chronologically, from his fight with the striga to the events of Blaviken to how he met Jaskier, Yennefer and ultimately Ciri.

And don't get me started on how easy it was for a doppler to go inside the Brokilon and take Ciri from the oh so untrusting dryads. This happened way too fast. Sure, they had a lot of story to tell, but instead of the whole „Geralt is your destiny“ talk which was repeated way too often (WE GET IT! MOVE ON!) her journey could have taken more room and to her relationship with Geralt. When they finally see each other by the end of the last episode they instantly fall into each others arms without having seen each other before and without saying anything. This is supposed to be a dramatic moment but without any former encounter, without chemistry, without even establishing anything other than how it is „destinyᵀᴹ“ it feels forced and it contradicts the title that claims that it needs more than destiny.