r

*pulls out a Novigrad longsword*

*pulls out a Novigrad longsword*

*pulls out a Novigrad longsword*

*pulls out a Velen longsword*

*pulls out a Novigrad longsword*

Ciri and Cerys <3

This way people can "protect themselves from witchers, and banish them". And since the witcher can't taste the honey, the human is safe from retaliation! The monster hunter won't know who harmed them!

gamebros will be fuming having to play as a woman - as Ciri

She looks so pretty and that monster slay was so slayy. Yet she didn't use her OP power dash when slaying the monster. I wonder if White Frost has to do with Ciri losing her elder blood (if she lost it) abilities. She’d have soloed that monster in trailer if she used her Dash ability in 20 seconds but she needed to drink potions. Which I assume has to do with her powers.

I wonder how many years have passed since tw3 since Ciri looks like 20s or 30s at most

Hope women will be romanceable too 🤭🤭🤭

In the show he's always so stoic. Most of his exposition has to be told by side characters implying things and you just have to gage his reaction to decide if it's true or not. In the books however, he gives a full lore dump to anyone who's remotely nice to him.

Random Character: So how've you been?

Show Geralt: Hmmmm.... 😒 😔 😒...

I haven't played the videogames (though it's on my list) but, usually, game protagonists are given multiple dialogue options so that you can sort of make them your own.

Videogame writers will attempt to allow you to determine the character's personality, motivations, struggles, etc. in response to what's happening to them. The way they respond will then also influence your own companions' storylines, the type of relationship they will develop with "you", etc.

Soo... By cutting Geralt's dialogue as much as possible, it almost feels like Henry Cavill has been attempting to give fans of the videogame that same level of "agency" and "ownership" over the character as they would while playing him, while totally disregarding Geralt's personality from the books.

Perhaps that may be why those angry rabid gamer fanboys are so fond of Cavill's performance, and see it as the only good thing about the TV show.

TV show Geralt is more or less a "blank slate" where everything is left up to the viewer's interpretation! His grunts, "fuck", sighs, etc. can mean anything you decide they should mean!

So, of course they love it! They can project themselves into the character, and give this Geralt whatever personality they want!

It's an impersonal performance meant to allow you to fill in the blanks, in a sense.

Of course, when it's an adaptation, the books are always much superior content wise (which now I can see pretty clearly after reading the books). But I can't say that I didn't enjoy the show as well.

I do think (as observed across platforms) that most of the hate for the show comes from the fans of only one character. Even that is understandable given that particular character has been pretty much sidelined and is used mostly as a comedic sidekick.

I dont mind it that much, considering I dont much like that one character, particularly (at least not the show version, sorry Joey.. you are pretty cute, tho).

I would say Henry played exactly how I would've thought a monster hunter or a witcher to be like, but then I didn't read the books first.

They are essentially the same people that are mad Ciri became the protagonist of the 4th videogame and call her looks "ugly".

They hate the women casting for the sorcerresses on the show with a passion, because they are supposed to embody the pinaccle of female beauty perfection, while on the show one is "morbidly obese" (the exact words I've seen used) and black when she's supposed to look like a greek goddess (spoilers alert, she does on the show!), Triss is supposed to be all red hair and white skin, Yennefer a raven haired white lady, etc.!

Before Season 3, in their opinion, Jaskier was given way too much agency on the show (especially in Season 2 when they made him the Sandpiper) when he is supposed to more or less be a womanizer that objectifies (again, mostly white... With the occasional succubus) women, and will refuse to stop oogling their breasts even when asked. But now, they've made him *gasp!* gay (they don't believe in panromantism/sexuality, much less in sapioromantism/sexuality, and it shows)!

And, to "legitimize their hate", they'll tend to say that the diversity on the show doesn't respect the Slavic world of Sapkowski (when the author himself clearly said that his books aren't particularly meant to be read through a Slavic lens, and it's a fantasist, fairy tale world), and twist videogame narrative and character to pretend that not staying true to the game is disrespecting the books.

They'll claim that this is why Cavill left, too!

Sadly, each time you see Cavill defending how he petitioned the writers to stay true to the books, he's mostly defending the game rather than the books themselves. And he's impossibly vague about it (so again, as fans you're the one needing to fill the blanks and decide what he means by that).

I think the only main cast member with some firm knowledge of the books, is actually Joey (because you've got quite a few other books nerds in the ensemble).

And, when you take into consideration that Cavill was refusing to be talkative and say his line on the show, you realize that this specific Jaskier is more or less saddled with an emotionally ambiguous Geralt that won't banter and share with him like the two of them are meant to be doing (if you go back to the source material)!

So, TV show Jaskier is forced to "constantly assume" what Geralt is thinking, feeling, etc., while taking the complete lead in the relationship, and imposing his own vision/interpretation of who they are to each other.

Even on that front, until Season 3 at least, it was a very "You can decide what Geralt feels for Jaskier", because it's all up to viewer's interpretation!

Ex: You can decide that Geralt's abandonment issues are making him fearful of trusting that he's genuinely loved (platonically or alterously, or perhaps even romantically) by the bard, and is causing misunderstandings between them.

You can decide that him refusing to call Jaskier "a friend" (especially refusing to reassure Yennefer on the subject) means that Geralt is confused about the nature of their relationship, because Jaskier behaves with him like a romantic partner would (bathing him, rubbing salve onto his butt while calling it lovely, etc.) while calling him "his best friend in the whole wide world"... Something that would make tons of sense for an a-spec person with a strong squish that would have been looking for a queerplatonic "travel companion" (Jaskier), but less for someone that would typically expect his close relationships to fall either in the clear category of friendship (emotional intimacy, but without the wish to make a commitment as life partners / marry your best friend / share a family with with them, more or less) or romance (Geralt).

Or, you could also decide that him refusing to call him "a friend" is because Geralt finds his pushyness annoying, because Geralt is clearly an "alpha type" while Jaskier is clearly a "beta type", and yet, he tries to "impose" on him and pretend he's the alpha, etc.

The possibilities for interpretation are near endless!

Even with Yennefer, Geralt gives a lot of mixed signals as to what he feels and wants from the relationship.

I think Season 3 is the first Season where he's more open with his emotions, says "thank you", "I love you", etc.

They've started giving him a clearer direction, and there are a lot less sighs, fucks and grunts coming from him.

Oddly enough, that's also when the actor has chosen to leave, perhaps because Geralt feels less and less like his own.

But yeah, it seems that Joey, as Jaskier, had been more or less forced to play and portray that friendship "on his own" in Season 1 and 2, because Cavill wouldn't commit to a specific type of relationship with his character, either, in a sense.

They have tons of chemistry on screen, and would make each other laugh on set. They are reportedly great friends IRL (and I've no reason to doubt it). But professionally, Cavill's portrayal of Geralt feels very subdued and without clear direction now that I look at it.

And I even think that the reason why I identified with Jaskier so much, too, and found him a bit "co-dependent" with Geralt, is because of the lack of clear feedback from Cavill that is sensed on screen.

People that are emotionally manipulative will constantly hold you in a state of uncertainty about the way they feel about you and where you two stand in the relationship - giving you just a tiny sliver of hope to keep you hooked on the relationship while never fully committing to it - to constantly make you prioritize them and nearly obsess about winning their approval / love.

And Jaskier (Joey) is dancing around Geralt (Cavill) trying to get a response / answer out of him all the time, and Geralt is... up to interpretation!

Is that gaze fond/affectionate? Does he care? Is he receptive to my ideas? What for does he yearn, damnit?!

Who knows?! You figure it out, Jaskier (Joey)!

Joey's read the books, he knows where that relationship is supposed to go to technically stay true to the source material™.

Now that I know that he constantly had to improvise lines to try to say everything that Cavill wouldn't, it feels like he's basically taken the responsibility of trying to make Geralt seem more sympathetic than Cavill plays him on the show, and attempting to move the relationship towards how it is in the books, while playing opposite a Geralt that is not book Geralt, and that doesn't respond to Jaskier as he would in the source material, either!

He's not even the TV show writers' Geralt!

He's Cavill's own private Geralt that only exists in his mind, and that everyone watching the show can own and fill in with whatever blanks they want!

He's just there making grunts, faces and sighs with Jaskier (and many other characters), and you're the one that needs to decide what he feels and what it means!

No wonder some people feel like something about Jaskier, Yennefer, etc. feels "off" on the show, Geralt is "off".

But because "Geralt is us", we don't instinctively realise that it's him that doesn't work with the ensemble! We want to be a part of that world, too, and Cavill is giving us that opportunity.

But he's not embodying Geralt. We are.

So, maybe that's why I instinctively trust the character that's emotionally available and more verbal (Jaskier)'s perspective on the show...

And why my constantly feeling that Jaskier is reaching out to an "unresponsive Geralt" in the relationship comes from the fact that Joey Batey is constantly reaching out to a co-star that's letting him drive the whole dynamic of the relationship on his own, and refusing to commit to Jaskier and Geralt's friendship in any specific manner.

Then, you watch Joey act with Hugh Skinner, and Hugh gives back as good as he gets!

He's committed to the role and the emotions of his character without ambiguity. Sure, a lot will always remain up to interpretation. That is true of any dynamic between characters.

But it's a relationship that's very "spoken" on screen, and that both actors appear to be showing a commitment to, at the very least.

The first feeling I had watching Jaskier and Radovid interact together on screen was literally relief. Finally I don't have to make any mental gymnastics to make it work!

I see beauty (and dysfunction) in Jaskier and Geralt's on screen relationship on the show because I chose to fill in the blanks in a way that I'm sure others have filled completely differently!

Again, it's not bad, but it might explain why so many people with so many different ideologies are so protective of Cavill's Geralt... he's essentially theirs!

An incel can relate to him and connect with him - seeing him as a long-suffering wise stoic no-nonsense man trapped in a world filled with woke nonsense.

A victim of parental abuse can relate to him, and see him as emotionally fragile and trying to protect himself from further hurt.

He's no one and everyone!

It's quite fascinating, really.

I mean, I do get pretty passionate talking about characters I love and will gladly share my perspective on various dynamics.

Over analysing things comes to me easy and is tons of fun, and my neurodivergent ass has a special interest for human and animal psychology (I'm a parrot behaviorist).

But I typically do my best to use "I" statements and specify that's my interpretation without imposing it (hopefully).

We each relate to a character, a show, a book, etc. our own way through a bunch of personal filters...

...and this is art.

The goal is to make the viewer feel and experience things that are intimate to themselves most of the time.

Not to come up with a single interpretation / truth about it.

IRL, you want to clarify the message you were supposed to receive from the sender to make sure the communication works and what is being understood is as close to identical as you can from all sides.

With art? You can make it your own.

Just don't make it your own, and then claim to be a champion of authenticity while implying the writers of the show's interpretation is lesser than your own if they fail to see it your way is pretty much what bothers me about Cavill's stance in this case. Or how his fans interpret Cavill's stance, more like, since he's someone that rarely if ever clearly states his opinion on something (just vaguely implies things) to sort of play all sides and this drives me nuts!

Great PR strategy! Ineffective communication technique, but if your goal is to remain popular and have "everyone love you" as an actor, because they believe you think like them, crazy effective.

Honestly though, can't blame Cavill for trying to play all sides, even if it looks hella pretentious. Considering how fan following of any celebrity behaves in general. I mean, I have rarely seen a non-toxic fandom. It's nearly impossible to express any opinion on anyone, actor or character, without everyone taking offense someway or the other. I miss the days when it used to be good fun being in a fandom. Now, it's just useless stress.

I don't necessarily blame him, given that it would alienate him from quite a few fans that currently worship him, and he would open himself to potential attacks from them (they can get quite vicious).

But releasing a statement such as "Regardless of my reasons for having chosen to leave the role, I would like to make it clear that the decision to have Jaskier be explicitly queer on the show, and/or making the cast racially diverse to portray characters in a fantasy world, are not part of those reasons," could at least show that he doesn't support nor share the opinions of those fans.

Unless he does. But that's just the thing. We don't know because he won't position himself anywhere.

We can assume that, since he's supposedly good friends with Joey Batey who - as it turns out - chose to explore the idea of Jaskier being queer on his own, until the showrunner approached him with an idea for a queer storyline, then Cavill would be supportive of Jaskier being queer.

We can deduce that, since he's often made innuendos about Superman and Batman being attracted to each other, he's totally fine with LGBTQ+ characters / stories / dynamics in general.

But it's all implicit, based on our own deductions, and never based on him taking any position.

So, some of his fans/supporters that are more extreme in their ideologies will say that Cavill is fine with "queer baiting" and turning "woke ideology" into the joke that it is; but has issues with queerness being explicitly integrated into narratives and forced down people's throats just like they do!

Basically, when it's just an issue of fans feeling entitled and wanting to get their way (like the Snyder cut), him not taking any position was fine as far as I was concerned.

In this case, I have some level of discomfort given that those toxic fans feel supported by him in their queerphobic and misogynistic views; but I do consider that self-preservation is a very human instinct, and that the line between ignoring toxic fans behavior as an actor, and endorsing toxic fans behavior as an actor, can be hard to navigate stometimes.

and I would agree, if he didn't literally say that toxic fandom doesn't exist and any comments they make are just fans being passionate

this on its own may not be too bad, but if we combine it with the fact that he has never made any sort of statement defending his costars or condemning the bigoted way some fans critiqued the show

( even if we dont want to take the DeuxMoi leaks regarding how he treated women on the set into account or the proven by a photo fact that he was still friends with known abuser Beau DeMayo months after he was fired for said abuse into account since they are technically still hearsay)

compare that to Charlie Vickers who is a much less well-known and established actor on a show that arguably had even more right-wing vitriol thrown at it than the Witcher, and he doesn't have any problem speaking out against that sort of thing

so at least from what I can see, the only reason why Cavill wouldn't say anything is that he either A. dosn`t have any problem with what those fans say and even agrees with them on some points, or B. he doesn't agree but knows that he has cultivated such a fanbase of a certain part of the gamer community that he is afraid making statements like that would hurt his career/reputation

Because, by contrast, I remember this interview:

GAY TIMES: There will be a few homophobic haters out there, people who think a queer storyline is outlandish in a world of basilisks, dopplers and chernobogs. We saw this recently with The Last of Us. Is this something you’re anticipating or are you not entertaining all of that anti-LGBTQ+ tomfoolery?

Joey: In this fandom, there is a very vocal negative space. That vocal negative space is actually the minority, I think. The thing that I’m most concerned about and will do my best to counteract is when discourse becomes bigotry. Then, I don’t know what I’d do with myself. I think I’d log onto Twitter and battle them all off myself. There is going to be inevitable backlash but what we’re doing is worth it.

https://www.gaytimes.com/originals/the-witcher-joey-batey-hugh-skinner-queer-interview/

So, it's unlikely that he's unaware of the presence of those toxic fans, when other co-stars are very aware of it, and ready to state that bigotry directed at others is never okay.

Although, I should mention that this interview (the video you showed) seems to have been done in Season 1 (if we look at the clips they are playing).

And Cavill seems to have understood the question as meaning how does he feel about people seeing his own interpretation of the character in a negative light.

I'd be curious about how he'd answer if someone asked him about it today; while being explicit about them specifically referring to the toxic hatred that has been directed towards the way the female characters have been put front and center on the show, the diversity of the casting choices, and the decision that was made for Jaskier to be portrayed as a "personizer" rather than a "womanizer", so to speak.

Would he still attempt to go "well, you know, people are just passionate about it", or admit that "regardless of how passionate some of those fans may be, bigotry directed at specific groups of people, the cast, etc. like that is never okay."

Because I've met quite a few of those actually passionate fans he's referring to. People that genuinely love and prefer the game - as is their right - and might be sad and upset that Netflix chose to give priority to the books and their own vision / adaptation of the books rather than integrate more lore from the games into it.

They aren't toxic, and they aren't the ones going around bashing minorities and making it some huge morality issue about how the show is not respecting the BOOKS' integrity, and SAPKOWSKI's vision, while clearly defending elements only found in the games (falsely claiming that it belongs to the book), and holding sexist, racist, queerphobic and even ableist remarks.

When we are talking about toxic fans, we are talking about toxic fans. Not passionate and disappointed ones!

Those are two very different categories!

Do toxic fans still have the right to their sexist, racist queerphobic and ableist opinions? Yes. But people that stand against those harmful views have a certain responsibility to clearly state "treating others the way you do is wrong, I don't agree with it, and I'm opposed to it."

And this is where having an influential actor - whose voice is constantly being misused by those toxic fans - remaining silent about it, gets very close to endorsing those views, especially if in the past Cavill has basically said that "it's not toxic, it's just passionate".

Like okay, maybe in Season 1 most were still "just passionate" for the most part, as it hadn't yet been made entirely clear what the direction of the show was going to be (and how much importance Ciri, Yennefer, Francesca, etc. would have in it).

But you've still got that very vocal negative space that has since grown, and that now see Cavill as their "champion of the manosphere", that are absolutely awful online, and feel validated by their Geralt of Rivia's silence.

If you look at 1:28:15, Henry does show support for his main co-star's performances, but he does so by suggesting that their characters tend to be oversimplified. Which is technically okay, because he's entitled to be dissatisfied with the show's writers interpretation of certain characters.

But again, that dissatisfaction is still indirectly suggested rather than stated.

But suggested in such a way where he has the "courtesy" of making his co-stars appear like victims/hostages of a show that is "oversimplifying characters" (a.k.a. failing the source material™), so they can almost be seen like THEY are too afraid to speak out against the "big bads" because they need the money and the job.

So it does sadly make that very vocal negative minority feel validated in their interpretation of Cavill having left because the show was "becoming too woke", etc.

He did also wish Liam Hemsworth well, and the little of what he's ever clearly stated has always praised his co-stars (the main ones, at least).

But, at some point if you've been made aware that you've got the freaking manosphere worshipping you, where does it become your responsibility to say "I know these men interpret my behavior as saying I support their bigoted views and frustrations with the diversity of the cast and the place given to women on the show, but I don't."

The thing also is that, even if he was to say something now , would these people then invent some story about him having been threatened by Netflix with legal actions for standing for his beliefs, etc.?

They've created such a persona for him, that would they even be willing to believe that he's not the alpha male anti-woke dudebro they believe him to be?

But, at the very least, he'd be standing for what's right, rather than looking like he's willing to sell his soul to the devil if that means staying on top.

So, my own personal perception of him?

Somewhere between A and B.

I don't blame him. I don't hate him.

Self-preservation is human.

He's not publicly nor explicitly endorsing those toxic views.

But I can't help but feel like he lacks the courage to do anything against it, because he'd rather prioritize his own popularity and safety above doing the right thing.

Taking a stand against bullies means risking having them turn against you.

And Cavill has often spoken about having been bullied and called "fat Cavill" as a child.

What is sad about that tale, is that the way he says it, you get the sense that instead of having learned to be proud of being fat as a child, and realised that those people were just assholes, he "won" and "showed them" by working and training hard to achieve the standards of physical beauty that those bullies likely held in high regards.

And some people do protect themselves from bullies by allowing them to think that they are on their side (even if they aren't).

As much as he wants to be Superman in real life, I still see him as a child that never outgrew being a victim in a sense, and that will still want to protect himself by avoiding to provoke aggression from bullies directed towards him.

He might secretly agree with certain sexist views of society (A), but I've a feeling that a huge chunk of the issue is closer to (B).

Not because he's got a narcissistic personality disorder per se (he hasn't raised any clear enough red flags for me to diagnose something like that from him), but he would rather have the monsters "on his side", than become the target of their ire, and continue to reap the benefits in terms of them supporting his career.

He's human, not Superman. Humans are messy and scared and sometimes self-serving in the choices they make.

I don't blame him, but I'm not comfortable with the way he's chosen to handle those toxic fans, and I don't support his methods, either.