#twn: critical

[fangirleaconmigo]

I may be entirely too TWN critical, but with things like Burn Butcher Burn, I believe the writers genuinely don’t bother looking that deep into it. They don’t recognize just how messed up some of their choices are because they only understand the characters and themes (and especially the source material) as much shallower, more simplistic versions of what they are. They only see “butcher” as a petty, mean name that can make another catchy song to show off how much pain Jaskier feels rather than how deeply racist and triggering and out of character it is to us. And what’s annoying is, it ends up feeling like they’re phoning it in. Like they don’t care.

PLEASE MUTE TWN CRITICAL IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE POSTS

I'm catching up on asks, and Nonny, this was in response to my Burn Butcher Burn post. (I've taken so long to answer you may have forgotten lol)

Yeah there is literally no other explanation for me on that one. They just must not see that word the way I do. I don't know if it's just that they don't look at it 'that deeply'? Maybe? But I'm gonna tell you something, I just think that there is a vision of what love is, internal to that specific storytelling style, that I just don't vibe with.

The showrunner used to write for Daredevil, which I adore, but wrote the Matt/Electra eps, which I do not vibe with.

I just say that I do not vibe with, because I acknowledge that a TON of people like to read or watch that kind of relationship and I do not mean this as a knock on it, it's just that thing when you know something is not for you.

And that vision or idea of love specifically I think is not my cup of tea. And I think that radiates out to the other relationships, not just the romantic ones.

I'm being a little vague I know, because if I start assigning adjectives to those relationships, people are going to argue with me and that's not the point. The point isn't how I see those relationships, but just that they are not for me personally. And that just is what it is.

I don't liked to begrudge anyone their enjoyment of something. Life is short, love what you love. But it isn't for me.

[mechadria]

im honestly still just as wary about the next season of the witcher even after the table read -

because it was never about liam's acting skills.

do i think henry cavill was a spectacular match for geralt?

yeah. but not only because of his looks or his acting: he GOT geralt and the witcher in general. he's a massive nerd who knows the franchise like he wrote it himself and was a big reason (not the sole, but a big one) that the show kept on track and was even somewhat faithful to the original material.

but i don't believe cavill did a regé jean-page and like. left to seek stardom or whatever. this was a passion project too for him, you could tell.

no, I'm wary of the future of witcher because of the higher ups involved.

so what DID the people who disagreed so hard with him he quit the project do? well, they needed a 7000 word letter from joey batey and the fanbase pleading just to allow jaskier to be queer like he (pretty much) canonically is. didn't need incentive from anyone to create fake gay motives for the worse villain of the story, though. didn't need incentive to completely ruin one of the most beloved characters of the franchise, or let his actor get harassed on socials after the swap without ever saying shit.

i do not trust that these people, who have proven callous, arrogant and ignorant about both the source material and the opinions of the fanbase (and have made some choices nearing bigotry) and who disagreed so heavily with the actor who knew the source material best are capable of producing a good season 4. liam or no liam. am i hoping he's a good geralt? yes, the series and other actors don't deserve to have their performance harmed by him. can it be as good as the seasons cavill was in? for the reasons cited above: fuck no.

[waterflowing-under-ground]

Geralt and Dandelion in the books:

- 2 badass and competent professionals in their own fields who have great chemistry right from the start of their relationship

- bond over philosophy and literature and a mutual desire and need to roam and travel

- are friends because they just genuinely enjoy each other's company, love, care about, and respect each other

- go out of their way, often to great personal risk, to help each other

- A close, platonic relationship between two adult men who are comfortable being physically close with each other (which includes sharing a bed quite often)

- share personal and financial resources when they travel together

- feel comfortable enough to read each other for filth and be honest about what they see in the other's life choices, and feel free to tell the other what they need to hear (but don't want to hear) in terms of life and relationship advice.

- close until the (literal) end even though there were still some residual relationship issues between them (with the Dutchess Anna Henrietta situation) which the reader is left hoping would have been worked through eventually had they been given the time. And even this wasn't enough to make them want to stop being close. 🥹😭

Geralt and Jaskier on the TV show:

[keen-on-euphemisms]

Everybody: praising how well The Last Of Us depicted the adaptation, not only sticking to the source material but also making minor changes that compliments the story

Meanwhile, The Witcher production:

[hickeygender]

[stromuprisahat]

Of course a WOMAN needs to be betrayed by a man she sleeps with, because she's just too good and trusting to see through his mask of genuine feelings and affection.

Such a feminist move, to turn OCD rectoress with no mentioned interest in carnal distractions into just another gullible puppet!

You should've let her rearrange her tableware...

[camouflagedpath]

I was rewatching the latter half of season 3 (I know, questionable life choice), and did anyone else find Tissaia’s line about the enchantment procedure really strange?

"They make us sacrifice so much. The cost of learning magic. When I came to Aretuza, if a sorceress fell pregnant, she was kicked out. ‘Divided loyalties,’ said the men. So, I made them take us seriously. The enchantment was never about clearer access to Chaos. It was about getting a seat at the table. And the Brotherhood, they called me bold. I was just desperate. The first of many mistakes."

Like, not only does that completely contradict what Giltine said in S1 about the inherent cost of creation and needing something sacrificed in exchange (beauty + never aging in exchange for a mage’s womb), I feel like it also diminishes the entire plotline of Yennefer being upset about her infertility. She makes peace with it on the show through Sodden and Ciri etc., which is supposed to send a message about how family and fulfillment doesn’t have to come from your womb, and I feel like Tissaia suddenly saying ‘oh wait no, you actually can be a sorceress and get pregnant, I just wanted the men to take us seriously so I removed your ability to do so’ cheapens it somehow? I totally get her being regretful about sending pregnant students away, but to me the whole exchange felt like a cheap and shoehorned excuse to give Tissaia even more life regrets to justify the suicide or whatever. IMO if they wanted to go that route, then they should’ve just brought up the eel pool. But no, instead they have to contradict a whole ass S1 plotline with a stupid one-liner. (Also, what she said makes no sense anyways because the enchantment still occurs at graduation, so you’d still get kicked out of Aretuza if you fell pregnant before that.) Also it's weird that Yennefer didn't even say anything after Tissaia said it??

I also kind of liked how in the witcher books, Tissaia implemented the sterilization procedure because Chaos messes up your fertility anyways and often results in seriously deformed and dangerous offspring, and she wanted to prevent that. It showed a tougher, more rational side to her character that I feel was lost a bit in S2 and S3. I feel like through show!Tissaia’s general plotline with the Brotherhood, Netflix wanted to send this weird pseudo-feminist message about how you shouldn’t try to ‘be one of the men’ to be powerful, which okay fine, but why make old and wise Tissaia of all characters go through that?  

I know this is like 1 small point on the vast list of things Netflix screwed up, but it was bothering me so I decided to make this post lol.

[limerental]

tbh ok... I've been trying to wrangle my thoughts into line about this and have not talked about this anywhere but. I didn't vibe with yennefer's character in s3 as much (with some notable exceptions). the choice to make her appear extra powerful, heroic, in charge, etc were... not good for her character.

like geralt in s2, she didn't have much of a character arc. her character moments that challenged her had all happened in s2 and she seemed to exist in s3 purely to directly drive the plot forward. idk if that was wholly due to the book changes that put her more centrally in the thanned conclave and coup and lodge setup but. those choices sure didn't help.

(the notable exceptions for me were the fight at the silver heron where we see her struggle to keep it together more distinctly and also several vulnerable scenes with tissaia)

[just-a-witcher]

[toss-a-coin-to-your-stan-account]

the fact that the top post in the witcher tag is still the fucking clickbait article screenshot posted by a racist xenophobic homo/transphobe that says "ummmm lauren was actually ANNOYED about henry's enthusiasm on set" makes me want to bash my goddamn head into a wall

[yellowspiralbound]

Since season 3 of The Witcher Netflix comes out tomorrow...here are some of my concerns on adaptation from this season onward. Potential spoilers for the future seasons and definite spoilers for the books. Long post ahead.

The Hansa's Dynamic

I am so worried about how the Hansa is going to be handled in the show. Like shaking in my boots terrified. The showrunners already really messed up Dandelion & Geralt's dynamic...and that's one of the easier dynamics present in the Hansa imo. The dynamic is already going to be screwy because Cahir is a middle aged man and not a petulant teenager if he's present in the Hansa at all (though I think he will be since Emhyr called him and Fringilla out at the end of s2).

Emhyr as a Character

Speaking of Emhyr...I think they might attempt to give him a redemption arc, and I cannot emphasize how bad of an idea that is. They're going to retcon the whole "wanting to impregnate Ciri" bit, which I have mixed feelings on. Like yes, on one hand that's fucking gross but on the other hand, that bit is in there to show how fucked up Emhyr is and why Geralt needs to get to Ciri so quickly; it adds a sense of urgency to the Hansa's travels. If I see Emhyr sympathizers on my dash after this season I will lose my fucking mind.

Milva's Pregnancy & Related Scenes

I suspect that Milva's pregnancy is going to be cut entirely or play up the rest of the Hansa's concern for her as a weird "men think they can control women's bodies" thing which Milva will have to fight with them about so the show can be appropriately pro-choice without exploring any of the pro-choice nuance the books bring up. I can just see Regis talking to the guys about it being turned into a "the father deserves a say in a woman's choice to abort" scenario instead of the "I will give this woman her abortion regardless of what you all think about that (and I've made that VERY clear) but I think she's making this choice because she believes you all will abandon her/not support her if she wants to keep this baby and someone needs to make sure that she knows that won't happen" scenario that it actually is. This is also plays into my concerns about the Hansa's dynamic as changing that scene changes it irreparably.

Characterizing Nilfgaard as a Nation

Right now I feel like the show could go one of two ways 1) Nilfgaard is wrong in everything it does or 2) Nilfgaard is right in everything it does (if Emhyr gets a redemption arc). The show has already made a show of the Northern Realms' racism, which is book accurate mind you, but I fear this will translate to a sort of "Nilfgaard is the better nation as its less racist" scenario. While Nilfgaard is better in that aspect and a few others, it is still a militant slave nation. Nilfgaard and the Northern Realms both have their evils and their virtues; that's a big point in the books and the games. Neither nation is 100% good or 100% bad - they're just nations. I don't think the show will be able to handle that kind of nuance.

Jaskier & Radovid...

Apparently, Radovid is supposed to be one of Jask's love interests this season. Radovid is a massive racist, a war criminal, and a teenager. I'm sure all of that's going to be retconned but for fuck's sake just make a new character if you're going to age up and completely change the personality and insanity of an existing one. Important note: I am 1000% in support of queer Jask. I have never shipped that man with a woman in my life (even in the books and games) but for the love of God why did his LI have to be fucking RADOVID??

Mistle & the Rats

If they make Ciri and Mistle a love story, I am going to be disappointed but not surprised. Let me be clear: Mistle is a rapist and an abuser. I suspect they will change that to shoehorn in a queer relationship (even though Triss and Philippa are RIGHT THERE if they want a semi-canon wlw couple). The Rats as a whole are definitely going to be made into more robinhood-like characters because God forbid a main character like Ciri is morally grey or does questionable/bad things.

Geralt's Disability

If this season ends with the Vilgefortz and Geralt fight, as I suspect it might, Geralt will be disabled permanently by the end of this season. The dryads do not fix it. Magic does not fix it. Geralt becomes disabled and stays disabled. His disability becomes a hindrance during the books and the reader actively sees him grapple with the fallout of this. I do not trust this show to handle that - especially with how much more closed off Geralt is in the show compared to the books. If I had to guess, Geralt's disability will be handwaved away or mentioned in passing and never actually shown to impact him which is not cool.

[abeautifulblog]

Have you seen the first look of Season 4 Geralt’s stunt double ? it sure is…something

lol you mean this one?

It's lazy and cheap-looking, but it could be worse, I suppose. The bar is kind of on the ground for costuming in this show. 😂

I am just baffled that Netflix keeps flogging this franchise instead of putting it out of its misery (while cancelling far better shows), but then also doesn't bother invest in even marginally competent writing or costuming? Like, BY GOD, they will force this show to exist, but they won't put any effort into making it good.

Though tbh, all a show really needs for fandom funtimes is compelling interactions between its characters, and we may get that now that hcav is out of the picture. The way Joey and Anya were falling all over themselves for Liam Hemswitcher at the table read is cause for cautious optimism, certainly.

[dol--blathanna]

I try not to post too much TWN negativity on this blog, because I know plenty of people enjoy the show just fine, and I hate being an asshole and raining on other people’s parades. But, god, the way that the show treats Yennefer - or rather, mistreats her - just upsets me and pisses me off so much. 

The book already puts her through the wringer - too much at times, honestly - but the show just takes it to a whole new level. The amount of suffering they put her through that wasn’t present in the books is so frustrating to me. Like adding in random torture scenes that weren’t present (the hysterectomy scene, being tortured by Stregebor), losing her magic powers, constantly being captured in S2, not even having a particularly good court standing - like in S1 when Fringilla mocks her for not helping advance Aedirn at all, and Yennefer doesn’t even have a good comeback to that. It’s as if the show is just obsessed with giving her constant Ls and never really letting her come out on top. Sidenote: I am fine with angst, in fact I enjoy it, and I am fine with a character going through hardships and suffering. You can do a lot of great character, story and theme exploration with angst, and sometimes it’s necessary for a character to suffer to develop that. If I wasn’t fine with angst, I wouldn’t be a fan of the witcher lmao. But when I see a character who already goes through a shit ton of misery in the books get forced into even more suffering in the show that never happened....I start to have a problem.

And then, of course, S2 committed the cardinal sin with that stupid ass Voleth Meir plotline. As if torturing her, having her be captured, making her lose her powers, wasn’t bad enough - they completely character assassinate her by making her almost sacrifice Ciri to a fucking demon. Something that is so bewilderingly OOC for Yennefer, something that never EVER happened in the books. When the show got bored with creating narrative suffering for her, they decided to take it to a meta level by character assassinating her in a really bizarre, stupid way. Because, why was this necessary? I know that they were concerned about the fact Yennefer doesn’t really show up much in Blood of Elves, I understand they wanted to create a plot line for her that got her more involved in the main plot. But - why this???!!! There were 101 different plot lines they could have given her that didn’t involve her trying to sacrifice Ciri to a fucking demon, in the process completely messing up her relationship with Geralt and Ciri!!

And this is the main reason I’m making this post - her relationship with Geralt and Ciri being messed up. I’ve seen a lot of articles recently about S3, all stating that Yennefer essentially has to grovel to Geralt, that he ignores her for potentially a full year, that at the beginning he doesn’t even let her enter the same abode as them - what the fuck!!! It upsets me so much. Because this was the biggest problem with the VM plotline - it completely upends Geralt and Yennefer’s dynamic. In the books, their relationship is way more equal - in fact, it honestly would be accurate to say that Yennefer is the more dominant one in the relationship, not Geralt. The show is now completely turning that on its head, and making Geralt the dominant one - but not personality wise, more in a moral highground type way. Because now, whatever stupid shit Geralt does, or has done in the past - e.g. tell Yennefer she’d be a terrible mother, which he never apologises for - none of that matters!! Because it will never be as bad as Yennefer trying to kill Ciri. Instead of a relationship where they both fuck up and both make mistakes, like in the books, in the show the emphasis will all be on Yennefer. Yennefer is the one fucking up, Yennefer is the one making absurdly stupid mistakes, Yennefer is the one who needs to apologise and grovel and beg for forgiveness. 

And this is what I mean by, the show is obsessed with giving her Ls. Not only do they make her suffer, they character assassinate her by forcing her character to do this cartoonishly evil thing, and then punish her for it!! They don’t just take away her powers, her court standing, they even strip her of her own relationships!!! And I ask again - why is this necessary?? Who decided that punishing her like this would be an extremely important plot line, an improvement, over the original source material? Like back when the show was first announced, I sure as shit wasn’t thinking “oh wow a netflix witcher show - I sure do hope they have a plot thread where Geralt refuses to talk to Yennefer, and doesn’t even let her into the same fucking house as him, because she tried to kill Ciri!!” who wanted this??? Who thought this was a good idea??? Honestly, it makes me feel as if someone on the writing team hates Yennefer and wants her to suffer, both in a narrative and meta level. And no, I’m not talking about that infamous Beau deMayo interview - something that caused a huge amount of online drama and should be taken with a big old pinch of salt, especially since the writer who made this claim was responsible for some pretty questionable decisions, namely the whole Treeskel thing. I’m not making a direct accusation here - it’s more a feeling. When I look at TWN, I cannot help but sense a level of contempt and spite towards the character of Yennefer. That doesn’t necessarily mean someone in the writing team genuinely has it out for her, but if that’s the impression that I get from the way they treat her in the show, then something has gone very wrong with the narrative decisions they made for her.

And this is why, not only can I not let myself be excited for S3, it’s why I’m genuinely feeling dread about it. Every time I read interviews about how Geralt and Yennefer have this really rocky start and he’s ignoring her or whatever, my stomach just sinks. And again - why was this decision made? Who thought this was a good idea? And yeah, the TWN team have already said they’re trying to fix the problem with their relationship caused in S2, but a) the way they are going about fixing it only serves to punish Yennefer’s character more and b) it should not have been something to fix in the first place. It’s also why I can’t bring myself to believe that S3 will suddenly be more faithful and better than S2, esp in regards to Yennefer (aside from the fact they’ve made this promise before and failed to deliver). Because the early plot points of a story are extremely important in setting the foundation of your later plot, especially in a series like the witcher. If your foundation is inherently flawed, it doesn’t matter how good your later seasons are; they are built on a faulty base, and will therefore lack a good structure. Case in point with Yennefer. Without going too much into book spoilers, let’s just say she has a really rough time of it post-Time of Contempt in the books. So in the show, either a) they will just put her through even more suffering and leave you thinking “wow did this entire show exist just to punish Yennefer?” or b) they will have to deviate away from the books. Neither of these options are particularly good. (this also is one of my problems with S2 as a whole - they were so desperate to put in all this insane blockbuster action and dramatic plot points, but sometimes in stories you need moments of calm to make later dramatic plot points more hard hitting. In the books, Blood of Elves was the moment of calm before Time of Contempt’s batshit, action packed drama. In the show, you never get that moment of calm. Why should I care about whatever happens in Thanedd if S2 had Ciri get possessed by a fucking demon and go on a killing spree? But anyway.)

And I think the reason why I’m particularly disappointed with the way that the show has treated Yennefer’s character so badly (aside from the numerous promises of “we’re a faithful book adaptation” being complete lies) is that Yennefer is a character who already receives a lot of unfair hate. Obviously there’s the annoying “Team Yen vs Team Triss” thing from the games, but even within the show there were a certain type of fans of a certain ship who hated a lot on Yennefer for daring to get in the way of their ship. Like, I’m so sick of seeing Yennefer getting hate for stupid, unfair reasons - and now even the show is treating her like shit??? Like, give me a break!! 

I’m just tired of it. And obviously, if you like TWN and you’re excited for S3, that’s fine. In fact, I’m honestly jealous, I wish I could feel the same. And who knows, maybe the show will improve its treatment of Yennefer, maybe they’ll finally give her some Ws. But that’s what I thought about S2, and was proven VERY wrong. Any confidence, trust or optimism I had left for the show was completely destroyed by the Voleth Meir plotline in S2, and the show will have to work very hard to rebuild that trust for me. And unfortunately, everything I’ve heard about S3 so far is only confirming that they’ll continue to treat her poorly.

[roughentumble]

ach no lads

[edgepunk]

"The Witcher Netflix is bad because it's pandering to the woke crowd and casting actors of color-"

"The Witcher Netflix is both visually and thematically very bland and uninteresting, it failed to capture the various cultural inspirations for its world and the book's themes. It looks and feels like any other generic western fantasy show."

(img source)

[hickeygender]

how we doin' netflix haters? 🫶🏼