The Witcher

I'm a big fan of The Witcher 3 and through it started reading the novels that birthed the games; ever since I heard Netflix was making a series based on the books I've been keeping an eye on it and now that the first trailer has dropped (with show release apparently in December), I felt it was time to share my thoughts. I'll be going through what we know, provide some context, and go over concerns that I have. You can read a thorough breakdown of the trailer here and watch an intro to the world here. I will try, in what follows, not to spoil the books too much, although in discussing what's known some elements of the story going forward are mentioned.

Let me preface this by saying I want the show to succeed, not only because I like the source material, but because there's precious little good fantasy on TV (see below). I have, however, been burned many times when it comes to adaptations, so I'm being cautious with my expectations.

Context

We're in an interesting place when it comes to fantasy on TV. Despite Game of Thrones' massive success, there have been few attempts to copy it (Spike's failed The Shannara Chronicles is an exception, albeit Terry Brooks' limp pastiche of Tolkien was not the best choice to imitate that success). With HBO's cash cow concluding in controversial fashion, the door is open to other fantasy shows to capitalize. Along with Netflix's The Witcher (our topic), we also have The Wheel of Time (Amazon, which is in the midst of casting), a Game of Thrones prequel (HBO, whose pilot has wrapped shooting), and a new Lord of the Rings series (Amazon, in the midst of pre-production--apparently twenty episodes are planned for the first season and the Tolkien estate has the right to veto things they don't like). Compared to other genres, this isn't many shows (god only knows how many crime shows there are, albeit two fantasy shows is an overwhelming number for Robert Meyer Burnette), but because fantasy is so expensive to produce it represents a veritable cornucopia. I'd love for all of them to succeed, but the reality is most (even all) will fail.

The fact that these shows are being made doesn't tell us how much effort is being put into them. Early seasons of Game of Thrones had a cost-per-episode of six million. How much is Netflix spending? We don't have official numbers, although rumour-monger Daniel Richtman claims it's 10 million-per-episode (so 80 million for the season, similar in the cost-per-episode to GOT's later seasons), but no serious source has provided an estimate. The Marvel Netflix shows cost (on average) less than three million per episode and the overall trend for Netflix has been to spend less (with exceptions like The Crown). By contrast, the Amazon Lord of the Rings prequel has a 200 million dollar budget for its season (they also hired a notable group of production people, something Netflix has not, instead relying on regular TV people to succeed with the IP, none of whom have a strong background in fantasy).

Netflix's teaser was aimed at those unfamiliar with the property, rather than the millions familiar with the books and/or games. Despite this I saw a lot of confusion in the reactions to the trailer, so more needs to be done in that regard (just as they need to make specific appeals to existing fans). I've always thought Netflix struggled with marketing in general, so we'll have to wait and see what they do going forward.

Background of the IP

To set the stage for our exploration, let's go over the circumstances that have brought us to this point (some trivia: Sapkowski clearly either played Dungeons & Dragons or was familiar with it, as there is a lot of its material in his work).

1986 - Polish author Andrzej Sapkowski's first Witcher-related story is published
1990 - The first short story collection (The Witcher) is published
1994 - The first novel (Blood of Elves) is published, which begins his pentalogy (ending in 1999)
1997 - Sapkowski sells the game rights to Metropolis Software, who do nothing with them
2001 - A Polish TV show based on the books airs and is derided for being awful
2007 - CD Project Red releases The Witcher video game (selling 300,000 copies its first year); the author essentially gave away the rights (refusing royalties for cash upfront), believing it could never work; he's been bitter about CDPR's success ever since (he launched a frivolous lawsuit against them recently which did nothing for his reputation--I think CDPR settled the matter in order to maintain amicable relations with him); the story within the games take place (chronologically) after Sapkowski's novels end
2008 - The first English editions of Sapkowski's books appear (almost certainly due to the video game's success)
2011 - The Witcher 2 is released to acclaim (selling 1.7 million copies its first year)
2013 - Sapkowski publishes his last novel of the series, Season of Storms (the English version doesn't appear until 2018)
2015 - Witcher 3 is a landmark video game (selling 20 million copies to date), arguably the best RPG ever, and serves as the gateway to the books for many
2017
May - Netflix VP Kelly Luegenbiehl turns a planned Witcher movie into a TV series, which is announced in May; Sapkowski was reportedly involved as a creative consultant, but it's not clear if he had any impute into the show (he's not George R. R. Martin writing episodes for Game of Thrones); as far as I can tell, showrunner Lauren Hissrich has never mentioned specific contributions by him other than his approval of all her ideas
December - Hissrich, who had just finished co-producing The Defenders (and prior to that, Daredevil season two) is hired as the showrunner--what inspired this choice is unknown, other than she's done Netflix productions previously and had read some of the books (at least The Last Wish)
2018
September - Henry Cavill, a fan of both the games and books, is announced as Geralt of Riva; he'd been lobbying for the role for months
October - The rest of the cast is announced, causing a deluge of negativity (I'll delve into the backlash below); the criticism hasn't gone away and is unlikely to disappear until the series airs
October - Principal photography begins
2019
April - Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos tells investors the show will air in late 2019 (a scooper with a good track record says December 20th)
May - Filming completes, including a total re-shoot of the pilot (echoing what happened to the original pilot of Game of Thrones)--the episode was also re-written; the series took seven months to film, which is a month longer than a typical Netflix series (Stranger Things, the Marvel shows, etc)
July - An insider says the show has quietly been renewed for two more seasons--there are two possible reasons for this that aren't mutually exclusive: 1) exec's love what they've seen, 2) the show is so expensive paying it off requires more episodes--the 'too big to fail' symptom

The Adaptation

It's important to recognize this is an adaptation of the books, not the video games. If Netflix wanted to adapt the games they would have to cut a deal with CDPR (not just Sapkowski), which they have not. Given that, for those who have only played the games there are changes to be aware of: Dandelion will have his Polish name (Jaskier); Ermion becomes Mousesack; etc.

As for which book/books are being adapted, the show is focusing on two short story collections: The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny. There are eight episodes (fairly typical for Netflix, and two shorter than the norm for Game of Thrones). Which short stories are being adapted or touched on I discuss below, but the key addition from the writers is added backstory to for both Ciri and Yennefer (based on hints and flashbacks within the books). I like this idea quite a bit (I think multiple viewpoints is the better choice for long form storytelling). One of the benefits of this approach is that characters associated with those backstories will get additional investment from viewers.

The Showrunner

This is my biggest concern for The Witcher because I'm familiar with some of Hissrich's recent work (The Defenders and Daredevil season two specifically). Both shows were disappointments and their struggles boil down to story (the nuts and bolts of plot and character development). The issue in both was Elektra and The Hand--both were hackneyed and cliche. The Defenders in particular requires a Dickensian paragraph to explain its convoluted plot, but no amount of explanation saves it from the limp antagonists. Hissrich's last gig as a showrunner was Private Practice a decade ago, so Netflix did not pick someone currently on a hot streak to run the show.

It's important to point out the two Netflix shows were not Hissrich's shows--Marco Ramirez and Doug Petrie were responsible for both (with Petrie bailing on Defenders just as it was getting ready to film), and ultimately the story is their problem (I have no idea who cast of Elodie Yung as Elektra, although not all of the issues are with her wooden acting). Because The Witcher is more of a direct adaptation than the Marvel shows, Hissrich doesn't have to worry as much about the plot, ameliorating some of my concerns. She has, however, made some comments that could spell trouble.

"I never would have called myself a fantasy writer before this."

It's very rare for someone outside a genre to successfully enter it and do it well (an exception is Nicholas Meyer's Wrath of Khan, but it's much more common to get something like Simon Kinberg's two disastrous X-Men films: Last Stand and Dark Phoenix). Adaptations aren't like anything else and if you approach them generically you wind up with colossal failures (like Sylvester Stallone's Judge Dredd or Tom Cruise's The Mummy). Each IP has its own nuances and if they aren't respected everything goes off the rails--those benchmarks are what made it popular in the first place. This concern is at the heart of all the worries about the show thus far.

"I think fantasy, in current tv, lacks a strong female POV. I've said it before and will say it again, I'm not looking to inject a strident feminist perspective on the source material. What I want is for female viewers to be able to recognize themselves in this genre they love. So when I read Sapkowski's books, I was so thrilled. He's done the heavy lifting for me. These women are strong and troubled and complex and scared and brave and real and sexual and funny and dark as hell. They are every woman I know."

Hissrich said this shortly after being hired in early 2018 and her specific comment about fantasy-TV is very odd. The only fantasy shows on-air at the time were Game of Thrones and The Shannara Chronicles, and you can't say there aren't strong female characters in GOT. What was Hissrich actually referring too? I think her comment was about the superhero genre she had just been working in (at the time the MCU hadn't had a female-lead film and the Netflix shows, other than Jessica Jones, were also heavily male-focused). If she's unfamiliar enough with fantasy to conflate the two genres I worry about what that means for the show (it's also possible the comment is simply meant to deflect criticism and, as such, the specifics are meaningless).

It's not clear how Hissrich wants to depict female empowerment in the show. Both Sapkowski and CDPR never made the mistake of having female strength dependent on male characters, and by that I mean a woman's empowerment being tied to male emasculation. Yennefer is strong because she's strong--it has nothing to do with Geralt. Hissrich has a good template to follow, but lazy writing favours the other way around, so we'll have to wait and see what's employed.

Netflix and Hissrich have stressed that the show will be very adult, specifically mentioning violence and sex and comparing it to Game of Thrones. I suspect Netflix would have insisted on this irrespective of Hissrich's inclinations because the show is intended to bring in GOT's audience. It's still not clear to me what "adult" is going to mean in the show, but it's an encouraging sign that they won't shy away from it.

One of the great unknowns about The Witcher is how dependent its success is on the perspective of Geralt. The books and the games are all through his eyes--that's how the world is perceived. Hissrich wants to expand this perspective--push it out to include at minimum Yennefer and Ciri. I like multiple perspectives, but ultimately the story is about Geralt (it's called "The Witcher" after all), so that needs to be paid off. Part of the fun of the source material is Geralt's unique perspective, so it will be interesting to see how much of that remains intact.

The Writers

Lauren Hissrich (episodes one and eight) - I referenced her work that I know above; I'll re-state that she was not the showrunner for either show, so she can't be held responsible for the story beats
Jenny Klein (episode two) - I know her work from the disastrous second season of Jessica Jones, but she's best known for Supernatural (which I'm not that familiar with); she is also credited as a co-producer (as she was for Jessica Jones while being the lead for the first season of Cloak & Dagger); she hasn't directly worked with Hissrich previously as far as I can tell
Beau DeMayo (episode three) - Not very experienced and I'm unfamiliar with his work; his main credit is for The Originals as a story editor; he hasn't worked with Hissrich previously
Declan de Barra (episode four) - Not that experienced, I know his work from season two of Iron Fist (where he was primarily a producer), but he's best known for The Originals; like DeMayo he hasn't worked with Hissrich previously

Sneha Koorse (episode five) - I know her work from Daredevil season two (she also co-produced episodes of The Defenders); like Hissrich, she wrote for The Umbrella Academy (which she also produced); she has the Marvel connection with Hissrich

Haily Hall (episode six) - This is her first writing credit, with her only previous experience as a writer's production assistant on Power (where she worked with Hissrich)
Mike Ostrowski (episode seven) - A very experienced writer, but I'm not familiar with his work (his most recent was Colony and The Player); he's the show's producer, a role he hasn't had since 2005's E-Ring; he worked previously with Hissrich on Private Practice

There are ten people in the picture of the writer's room and seven listed above, so three other hands are involved. Both DeMayo and Hall are being given huge opportunities and this list isn't a who's-who of great television writers (it doesn't mean their work will be bad, simply that the credits don't guarantee it will be good). Of the six writers besides Hissrich she'd worked with half of them previously (and it's possible Klein and de Barra, who also did Marvel work, are people she's very familiar with). We know that scripts were being re-written as production was rolling (Vladimir Furdik says nine times--presumably he means overall--we know at least one of these re-writes was the pilot episode). This kind of thing is not necessarily bad (The Lord of the Rings was plagued by re-writes), but it does imply that the original scripts weren't working (re-shooting an entire episode is very expensive). Unlike the LOTR prequel crew for Amazon, however, none of the people above have an overtly strong relationship with fantasy (which can be a recipe for disaster).

The Directors

Alik Sakharov (episodes one, two, seven and eight) - Highly experienced, I know his work from Game of Thrones and Ozark; most recently he was on House of Cards
Alex Garcia Lopez (episodes three and four) - Less experienced than the above, but I'm familiar with some of his work (Daredevil season three, Luke Cage season two)
Charlotte Brandstrom (episodes five and six) - Also highly experienced, but I'm unfamiliar with her work (most recently she was on The Man in High Castle and Counterpart)
Marc Jobst (episode eight) - Did the re-shoots of the pilot because Sakharov was unavailable; experienced director, I know his work from Daredevil (seasons one and three), Punisher (season one), Runaways (season one), and Luke Cage (both seasons)

This is a strong group of directors; Netflix shows typically have good directors, so I don't foresee any issues. If there's visual problems it's likely to be VFX due to the cost (the show requires more than Game of Thrones because of its heavier fantasy-element); Platige Image and Cinesite seem to be responsible for those visuals, both of which have good track records. The cinematographers are two experienced men (Jean-Philippe Gossart, whose work on Shetland I'm familiar with; and Gavin Struthers, who also worked on Shetland). None of their extensive credits blow you away, but all that experience shows the industry has been happy with their work. There have been some complaints about the props (the Nilfgardian armour, Geralt's medallion, the contacts being used, etc), but I think until we see the final product it's too early to judge. The costume designer (Tim Aslam) previous experience was on Black Sails, which I'm not familiar with (Struthers worked on it as well).

Casting

The Controversy

"people are creating and perpetuating gossip where nothing actually exists"

Hissrich was responding to the unending concern about how her politics would impact the show--specifically its casting. If you read through the thread this is the statement that I think actually matters:

"Television should be for everyone. I don't mean that it should be CATERED to everyone, but men, women, conservatives, leftists, people of color, Polish people, people of ALL countries (190 to be exact) should be able to find something to relate to. And no, relating won't be solely through skin color"

Thus far the best fantasy adaptations (The Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones) have remained quite faithful to their source material in terms of casting, although whether that's relevant to their success is an open question (it's such a small sample size you can't draw conclusions). Sapkowski's books reflect a fantasy-version of Poland (with a healthy mix of general Slavicness and a pseudo-Germany in Nilfgard). Sapkowski does have pseudo-Arabs called the Zerrikanians, and has said there are diverse peoples elsewhere on the Continent, but they are peripheral to his stories. This echoes, somewhat, Tolkien's Middle Earth (which is meant to be our Earth), which was written specifically to create a mythology for the Anglo-Saxons (lost after the Norman conquest).

Hissrich has said a lot about this subject (in the past and recently), and her responses carry an unspoken assumption. That assumption is: the diversity requirement only applies to products that come from one particular group of people. There are reasons for this, but understand that Poland's lack of both a colonial past and an anti-indigenous history isn't relevant to this approach. This is notable because Hissrich wouldn't dream of diversifying the cast of a property that hailed from Asia, Africa, Polynesia, and so on. Her approach comes from a very specific American context and there are plenty of people who endorse it and believe it's an ethical and social good. Given that, those arguing with her about respecting the IP's cultural background won't get anywhere (as, indeed, they haven't). I do, however, believe Netflix is responsible for the decision rather than Hissrich, because it reflects their approach with other properties.

The second thing to be aware of is that the show's approach to diversity seems to be tokenism rather than inclusion (by the latter I mean an in-universe explanation for diversity; incidentally, in researching this I actually found an article discussing this issue in reference to the game). For those unfamiliar with the term:

[T]he practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to be inclusive to members of minority groups, especially by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups in order to give the appearance of racial or sexual equality within a workforce. The effort of including a token employee to a workforce is usually intended to create the impression of social inclusiveness and diversity (racial, religious, sexual, etc.) in order to deflect accusations of discrimination. One additionally relevant term for tokenism is "hyper-tokenism". Hyper-tokenism is where a person of color has increased screen time, is involved in the plot and in promotional images, but the white characters are still the most significant characters by the end of the film. Another relevant term is "ambiguously brown". Ambiguously brown characters are characters that are white-passing, but not fully white so that whatever they are cast in is not completely whitewashed.

How do we know this is the approach? Because there's no suggestion the characters that have been swapped have an in-universe reason for it, or that the change alters who their characters are. No specific group was picked to represent another ethnicity (like Nilfgard, or elves, or Cintrans, or dryads, etc). What we have instead is the hodgepodge approach of tokenism (Fringilla Vigo is a human sorceress from Nilfgard; Dara is a human from either Cintra or Verden; Amit Shah is a Sylvan; Raquel Amegashie is a Dryad; Anna Shaffer is a human sorceress from Temeria; Tobi Bamtefa is a human from Cintra; Mahesh Jadu is a human from Kovir; Natasha Culzac is an elf; and Royce Pierreson is a human mage from Kovir).

The response to this might be, well, maybe the entire Continent is diverse just like America. If that were the case, we'd have far more POC's (persons of colour) represented--instead we have just a sprinkling that represents mostly just one background (we have just one Asian in the cast). I would be much happier if there was a consistent idea behind it. Two other actors are playing Zerrikanians, so their ethnicity is more or less book-accurate. One adjacent oddity: Anya Chalotra (who I believe is of Spanish descent) is having her background erased behind makeup to more closely match her book appearance (make of that what you will).

What we aren't getting in the show that's common when this is the approach is used are gender-swaps--we've had none so far. I presume this is the case because there are so many existing, prominent female characters (one of my favourites, Phillipa Eilhart, isn't even in this season).

Another argument to be made against the accusation of tokenism is this: couldn't the above list simply represent the best actors available for those roles? That's exactly what Hissrich has said about how the entire show was cast (granted, what else would she say?). Let's acknowledge that her idea is ridiculous to start with--casting has never been a meritocracy (many Hollywood stars are not the best actors, they are simply the most popular actors); casting stars helps generate interest and investment. That aside, if it's really about the best landing roles, why isn't someone like Mahershala Ali playing Geralt? Or Deepika Padukone playing Yennefer? There's no reason why they couldn't be if the playing field was level, but it's telling that they are not. The three leads brought to SDCC were not POC's and I believe that was intentional (I have more about Netflix's strategy in dealing with the controversy below).

I think it's clear that Netflix wanted a show that wasn't 99% Caucasian and that their approach (a common one in the entertainment industry) was tokenism. How you feel about that is going to vary--some people believe inclusion is so important it doesn't matter how it's done, others think this approach is pernicious and simply another form of exploitation. The ethics aside, I think the approach is just bad storytelling. While I generally prefer faithful adaptations, I'd be more content if they'd made an in-universe reason for diversity (there are so many good options they could have used--even invent a group that wanders the Continent like the Roma).

More broadly, why should a production follow its source material in the first place? There's an artistic and financial incentive to follow it. Artistically the idea is to follow the zeitgeist of the IP; financially it's to capitalize off of existing fans (ask CBS how well slightly varying Star Trek has gone for toy sales--fans are fickle). How much this is done varies quite a bit--from very loose adaptations like A Wrinkle in Time to very exacting ones like The Lord of the Rings (Tolkien is a much more intimidating author to adapt than Madeleine L'Engle, admittedly). Given those incentives, why make changes?

Entertainment companies are very keen on inclusivity for a few reasons: 1) they face heavy criticism if they do not (cf Days Gone), 2) to cast the widest possible net in terms of viewers, 3) to help review scores, which are typically tied to executive bonuses. How much Hissrich's personal views actually matter is unknown, although it's been said she had full control over the casting (what else would they say regardless? Sophie Holland is the casting director, and her past credits are loaded with TV movies like Leprechaun Returns and shows I've never heard of). Hissrich, or Netflix, have been very careful about who has swapped. We are getting faithful versions of Geralt (Cavill) and Ciri (Freya Allan), and with a lot of makeup Anya Chalotra can pass as Yennefer (complaints about her age are much too inside baseball to matter). Meritocracy is not why the most marketable star (Cavill) has the lead role either--whether he's the best Geralt available is less important than his cache with the audience and the media. Most of the POC roles are secondary, tertiary, and disposable (fitting the tokenist approach). What Netflix (or Hissrich) has done brilliantly to avoid complaints from progressives is to upset people and get attacked--this makes them immune to casting criticism and helps review scores (I think this is the primary reason Triss was race-swapped). It also means that if the show fails, Hissrich won't be blamed for it, she can skate away free by blaming toxic fanboys and her career will move on untouched (at least insofar as her reputation in the media goes).

Are fans justified to be upset by casting? It's a regular occurrence for fans to be upset--by any change, even in cases where it seemingly doesn't matter at all (like the fuss over a female Doctor Who or the hate that went to Michael Keaton or Hugh Jackman when originally cast as superheroes)--diverting from tradition is going to upset fans and that has nothing to do with ethnicity. The standard response to this is fans should be content with the original depictions in the books/games and understand an adaptation means change and accept the desire to open it up to new fans. This answer effectively shuts down debate, but it's not a very good answer because it's about an entirely different medium (if the books are the books and the show is the show, then one does not satisfy the other). There's nothing wrong with fans wanting to see the adaptation reflect its source material. One of the ironies about this whole debate is that Hissrich is partially responsible for it because she said back in early 2018 that she wasn't interested in bringing her politics into the show (something she then refuted at SDCC).

But we're starting to beat a dead horse here so let me sum up: I think Netflix mandates diversity for very practical (as opposed to ethical) reasons. Hissrich has defended this with a wide array of comments on social media, but it's clear she tried to walk the line of both appealing to fans by casting mostly white actors (including the three leads) and to reviewers and progressives with a token sprinkling of POC's (almost exclusively those of African descent for reasons that aren't clear to me--her American perspective perhaps?). I think the Triss' casting was intentionally made to piss off fanboys so as to protect the show and Hissrich on the left--a theory I wouldn't have if they'd cast a well-known actress in the role (if this was Lupita Nyong'o it's a very different conversation). While those who have played the games think of Triss as a vital character, she's far less important in the books (so, ergo, the show).

What do I think? In general I think race or gender swaps are fine as long as there's an in-universe reason made for them. I want logical consistency. If a homogenized culture has a single person of another ethnicity and it's never explained (or the explanation is ridiculous, ala Tom Cuirse in The Last Samurai), it's poor storytelling and it breaks the immersion. If a change is made, but has no impact on the character, then the change itself is pointless--no one should like pandering. If the show is pandering (as it seems) then I'm unhappy for that reason. I am not, however, a "book purist" (or "game purist"). Changes to source material aren't inherently bad. I'm all for expanding the narrative and streamlining some of the story, it just requires good writing and performances. I hope a year from now all of this can be forgotten and we'll be looking forward to a second, excellent season of The Witcher.

Netflix's Handling of the Controversy

Let's have no illusions about the fact that both Netflix and Hissrich were well aware that their casting would provoke an uproar (they probably didn't expect it to continue unabated for this long, but they knew there would be anger). Thus far Netflix (less so Hissrich) has been very clever in how they've handled this. Rather than go the Paul Feig (Ghostbusters) or Rian Johnson (The Last Jedi) route of fighting with fans and causing damage to the franchise, Netflix has both avoided that and done its best to co-opt the discussion. The debate has largely been over the ethnicity of the cast, but at SDCC they only talked about the casting a virtual unknown to play Ciri and the decision to cast Henry Cavill as Geralt. Virtually no one was having this discussion beforehand, but that's all that was discussed by those involved with the show. It's a clever way to avoid fanning the flames of the debate while still engaging with it.

The Cast

I'm not going to go through the entire cast (it's huge list), just those listed as "main" on Wikipedia (with a few exceptions):

• Geralt - Henry Cavill; the best-known cast member; I've seen limited criticism of this (what there is, is very idiosyncratic) and I thought it was an excellent choice; I'd like to hear more of his voice since that's such a distinctive element in the games, but on the whole his presence inspires confidence
• Ciri - Freya Allan; a true unknown; she looks the part, so it's going to come down to how she's written and her performance--it's really important that her relationship with Geralt is believable, because that's the heart of the story; I've seen a few complaints about the age of the actress, but the only other option was casting two completely different actresses and I'm fine with the show wanting to avoid that; I'm not a fan of the one of her major plots from the pentalogy (for book fans her adventures with the Rats I found utterly tedious), but that's not something we'll have to worry about this season
• Yennefer - Anya Chalotra; also a virtual unknown (the unremarkable Wanderlust being her primary credit), but with makeup looks like the character (for me she doesn't achieve the beauty we're told she has in the books, but mileage for appearance will vary)--the writing for her and her relationship with Geralt and Ciri are what's most important; I've seen some complaints about her age, but she was cast young in order to pass as a 14-year old early in the show (see below), so I don't mind it
• Jaskier (aka Dandelion) - Joey Batey; we've seen no clear footage of him and there's a lot of pressure for him to be good because this is the kind of character you could hate if done poorly; I'm unfamiliar with his work, but he's landed roles steadily the last few years
• Triss - Anna Shaffer; apparently she was in the Harry Potter films, although I don't remember her (her main credit is on the British soap opera Hollyoaks); she doesn't fit the aesthetic of sorceresses (she looks like a friendly librarian and older than she actually is); her performance can, of course, ameliorate the disconnect, but from reactions I've seen she's fallen completely flat (if her performance isn't good it will cause the show significant problems as seasons go on)
• Tissaia - MyAnna Buring; I barely remember the character and I only know the actress from her VO work in the Blood and Wine expansion of Witcher 3; she does not come across as someone extremely obsessive about her looks (as the character is in the books), but Buring is a busy and experienced actress and should be fine in the role
• Eist - Bjorn Hlynur Haraldsson; I know the actor from two Icelandic shows: Trapped and Fortitude; he's a solid actor who does brooding well (what he was asked to do in those shows)
• Mousesack (aka Ermion) - Adam Levy; only briefly spotted in the trailer, but he's another key character; I'm unfamiliar with his work, but he's a busy TV actor
• Calanthe - Jodhi May; other than her appearance as Maggy in Game of Thrones, I'm not familiar with her (she looked a bit ridiculous in armour, but it might have just been the particular shot of her in it); she's another busy TV actor
• Fringilla - Mimi Ndiweni; they are radically changing her backstory to make it possible for her to be part of Yennefer's origin--this likely means a butterfly effect for her arc subsequently; I'm unfamiliar with her work, but like Batey above she's had steady roles the last few years
• Sabrina - Therica Wilson-Read; relatively inexperienced actress who seems to have an expanded role from the books, but this fits with Yennefer's expanded backstory (thus far she's the only actress who comes close to Sapkowski's sorceress aesthetic)
• Wikipedia has Renfri (Emma Appleton) as part of the main cast, but this is clearly in error given who the character is; the same applies to Stregobor (Lars Mikkelsen)

Other than Cavill, the cast is largely made up of TV-regulars, but not stars. This reduces Netflix's costs considerably, but does mean the show is taking an enormous risk that the lesser known and unknown can carry the acting burden--HBO was much more cautious when they cast Game of Thrones (including many well-known actors as part of the gigantic cast).

Canon Chronology

A Redditor has gone ahead and posted a comprehensive chronology for everything officially-related to The Witcher franchise and it's worth repeating it in a more linear fashion to consider the course ahead for the show. For the short story collections I've used TLW for The Last Wish and SD for Sword of Destiny; I included the CDPR games for context (I removed the comics based on their continuity as well as the non-canon items as there's no indication Hissrich has delved into them); I've colour-coded key characters and put a star (*) next to what the Polish show covered; Related to Ciri, includes Ciri, Yennefer, Dandelion, and all three.

• "A Grain of Truth" (TLW)
• "The Lesser Evil" (TLW)*
• "The Edge of the World" (TLW)*
• "The Last Wish" (TLW)
• Season of Storms pre-epilogue
• "A Question of Price" (TLW)*
• "The Witcher" (TLW)*
• "The Voice of Reason" (TLW)*
• "The Bounds of Reason" (SD)*
• "A Shard of Ice" (SD)*
• "Eternal Flame" (SD)*
• "A Little Sacrifice" (SD)
• "The Sword of Destiny" (SD)
• "Something More" (SD)*
• Blood of Elves
• Time of Contempt
• Baptism by Fire
• The Tower of the Swallow
• The Lady of the Lake
• Season of Storms epilogue
• The Witcher (CDPR)
• The Witcher 2 (CDPR)
• The Witcher 3 (CDPR)

What's interesting is how much of the same territory both the derided Polish show and Netflix are covering. Other than "Eternal Flame" and "A Shard of Ice" (for the Polish show) it's basically the same. The similarity makes me wonder if Hissrich watched the show (and why wouldn't she?), albeit these stories are the origin so unless they were jumping straight into the pentalogy I'm not sure what the other option would be.

One of the things very apparent from the above is that an expanded story for Ciri and Yennefer does not fit very well into how Sapkowski's narrative evolved. This requires narrative changes and we'll get into that, and the Netflix story as we know it, below.

The Story

The lovely folks at The Redanian Intelligence (TRI) have been offering story breakdowns based on the trailer (the breakdown at the top is by them), scenes shown at SDCC, episode titles, and other elements known from interviews, social media, set photos, and so on. They believe Yennefer's expanded backstory will extend over three episodes, covering her origin and transformation and this seems to be echoed by what both Hissrich and Chalotra have said in interviews (that we'll see her at age 14, 45, and 77).

Here's what we know about the episodes and their connection to the source material (those with scenes definitively shown in the trailer are marked in green; titles are in reference to the source material, not the episode names):

• "The Lesser Evil" (1) - This is the story of Blaviken, a pivotal one for Geralt and it looks to be contained within the confines of this episode (this is the pilot that was re-shot at the end of production); Yennefer's backstory is presumably peppered within or its own distinct segment, beginning with her at age fourteen (including her parents and possibly her beginnings at the Aretuza school of sorceresses); Ciri's story also starts here, which likely means Geralt and/or Yennefer's stories are in the past
• "The Edge of the World" (2) - The story introduces Jaskier (Dandelion), as well as giving us one of the more interesting elements of Geralt's approach to monsters and thoughts on non-humans; TRI believe this episode will introduce Istredd into Yennefer's continuing backstory (which is a change from the books, because there he meets her after she's left Aretuza)
• "The Witcher" (3)* - We'll meet Foltest and TRI believes we'll see larger changes from the source material, with the inclusion of invented characters and merger of others (Triss will appear here, whereas she doesn't in the original story, even though canonically she's part of Foltest's royal council--Sapkowski simply hadn't invented her when he wrote this story; it's speculated she'll take over Nenneke's role for this part of the story); we'll see Yennefer's physical transformation and the end of her origin arc; TRI says this will also include the Battle of Marnadal and the Slaughter of Cintra, which is discussed only in flashbacks in The Tower of Swallow; how the fallout of the lost battle interacts with the next episode is a bit uncertain
• "A Question of Price" (4) - This is the short story that connects Geralt's fate with Ciri (who, unlike in that story, is on the scene in the show); TRI understandably calls those elements a flashback given the Ciri-timeline; whether Ciri's escape from Cintra is in this episode or the next isn't known, but this is the moment where Cahir is introduced, although unlike in the books it appears Ciri escapes him; this is also where we'll get a show-invented story for Yennefer involving Lyria and an enemy sorcerer
• "The Last Wish" (5) - The story that introduces Yennefer and Geralt, beginning their long, tumultuous relationship; this is where Ciri will meet the invented Dara character (likely a stand-in for Marck) and encounter the dryads; TRI believes the show is changing the circumstances of Geralt meeting Ciri, speculating that rather than meeting her prior to her interaction with Eithne, it will be afterwards
• "The Bounds of Reasons" (6) - The story includes Tea and Vea, who have been cast; whether Ciri encounters Cahir again in this episode or the next isn't clear
• Unknown (7) - TRI has nothing specific that's locked into this episode; presumably there will be a build-up in the Yennefer storyline about the battle in the following episode--what Geralt is doing is less certain (the plot of the above might continue here)
• "Something More" (8) - The episode will include (and probably focus on) the Battle of Sodden, which while important to the overall book story, is only referenced in passing; it will feature at least some changes from the source material; this is also where Geralt reunites with Ciri and TRI believes it will echo that meeting from the books fairly closely; this is also the story that shows Geralt and Yennefer meeting at Belletyn, but it seems likely this encounter will occur earlier in the show

*TRI goes through all sorts of interpolations to explain how Geralt could know Yennefer before meeting Triss to preserve her arc with him in the books, but I think it's more likely that Hissrich cut that element to avoid Triss having that character flaw (what she does amounts to be rape and betrayal and I don't think Hissrich wants her version of Triss to have that in her)

Elements from the sidequel Season of Storms will appear in part (how much is uncertain, but Lytta Neyd/Coral has been cast and her story is from this novel), along with flashbacks throughout the series that touch on the main character's pasts. Hissrich has said she's saving "A Shard of Ice" for the second season, so the main plotline from there won't be appearing.

Stunt Coordinator Vladimir Furdik says the fight scenes are superior to Game of Thrones (something he has an educated opinion on, because he was a stunt coordinator for GOT). He was very happy with Cavill's swordsmanship (Henry didn't use a stunt double).

The Reactions

From what I've seen most of the reactions to the trailer have been positive, although it's not blowing people away (the official Reddit page received only a modest bump in membership, for instance). The official trailer page has about 17 million views when I last checked and while the dislikes are relatively high, it's just 12% of the overall votes. Hissrich has spent a great deal of time arguing with people on social media and this would have been ameliorated to a degree if the trailer had been great. Some of the media coverage has been amusing (THR was only familiar with the game and their comments relate to that). The repeated criticisms I've seen are about the aesthetic (how the cast or props look) and Triss specifically, keeping in mind there isn't a lot of performance to judge given how quick the cuts in the trailer are.

Conclusion

What do I think? I've had mixed feelings all along. Let me recap the positives and my concerns:

Positives
The source material (extensive and excellent)
The Directors (a strong group)
Henry Cavill as Geralt
The expanded storyline for Yennefer/Ciri (a great idea in theory)
The altered timeline so that all three characters coexist throughout the season (expands the dramatic narrative)

Concerns
The showrunner (lack of fantasy experience and experience as a showrunner, along with her recent track record)
The producer (hasn't had that role in forever)
The writers (none of them really standout and none have a fantasy background)
The cinematographers (busy guys, but none of their work jumps out at you)
The casting director (unremarkable credits)
The inexperienced/relatively unknown cast (which can only be hit or miss)

Even though I disagree with the token approach to casting, I don't think it will impact the quality of the show--that's all down to writing and acting. For whatever reason, while Netflix will release ahead of the other fantasy shows in trying to capture the GOT audience, they have not invested heavily in the obvious components of the show (the actors, the writers, etc). Maybe they saved a lot of budget for effects, sets, and props, but none of that will matter if the other elements don't work.

One saving grace for the show, potentially, is that they'll have some feedback before they start filming the second season. If the flaws of the show are limited there will be room to fix things (whether they have the right people in place to do that remains to be seen--so much of the brain power behind the show are veterans from Marvel Entertainment whose shows have been wildly inconsistent). Regardless, hopefully we're four months away from a fantastic show.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)