There are many people who think that the adaptation of the original book is terrible, I hold the opposite opinion. In fact, the first season of the adaptation of the original has a lot of bright spots, just to say a few: (there may be spoilers)
1. Why is the plot a little loose?
The first two volumes of the original work are independent stories, with little relationship to each other, just like a collection of folk tales. In fact, it is difficult to film well, so the first season is mainly used to explain the world view setting and character background. The main line is only the entanglement between Geralt and the Sintra royal family. The beginning of the second season is the real long story, which can be regarded as the real beginning of the story. The three stories that have little to do with the main story, true love like blood, eternal fire, and a little sacrifice, have been removed from the drama, and the jealous passage (Shards of Ice) in which Geralt and his rival Istridder are fighting for each other has also been removed. Simple and compact.
2. Why set up 3 lines?
Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri are the three absolute protagonists of the book, so the first season must focus on these three characters, so the idea of setting up three lines is easy to understand. At the same time, because there are too few plots of Ciri and Yennefer in the first two volumes, it is the most reasonable way to transfer some of the plots that explain the background to these two lines.
In addition, there are some details in the series to reflect the time relationship between these three lines. I think finding those details is one of the joys of watching a show.
3. Why does the line of Ciri have to arrange the role of the black elf?
The grievances between elves and humans are the background of the whole story, similar to the long-term disputes between Jews and Arabs, so the grievances between elves and humans must be clearly explained. In the original book, only the short story "Edge of the World" introduced the background of the elf leader, which was far from enough, so it was necessary to arrange another common elf in the relatively weak line of Ciri. Moreover, this elf died in order to save Ciri, which is a foreshadowing of the plot of Ciri in the elf world in Volume 7 of the original book. If there was no interaction between Ciri and the elves before, then the plot with Avarak and Eredin would be a bit abrupt.
4. Why add the plot of Yennefer's training in the academy?
Because there will be a plot of Yennefer training Ciri later. Both Yennefer and Ciri have elven blood, and they both resisted when they received training. The teachers were strict on the surface but they were very loving to the disciples. In addition, it is obviously the most appropriate for the warlocks who will appear later to explain it on this line.
In addition, the first two volumes of the original book did not specifically mention the Wizarding Society, but the relationship between them and the monarchs of various countries and their respective roles should obviously be explained clearly in the first season, so that after the main storyline unfolds, they will not let the People feel at a loss. In the original work, Fringilla did not appear until volume 5. Such an important role was explained clearly in the first season in advance. Such an adaptation is obviously very reasonable.
5. Why does Triss appear in the story of the princess turning into a vampire bird?
I think it's a very successful adaptation here. On the one hand, Triss has too few scenes in the original book; on the other hand, her appearance in this plot as a warlock of Temeria is very reasonable.
6. Why add the plot of Yennefer being hunted down and burying the child?
In order to show Yennefer's love for the child, it can explain why she cares so deeply for Ciri later. And in the main storyline that follows, there will be a plot where Ciri is hunted down by the bounty hunter Bonnet, which obviously echoes before and after. Also, although I don't see the three witcher badges on the killer's chest, they are very similar to Bonnet in appearance, and are likely to be the same person.
7. Why increase the story of Cassirer?
This is very simple, because Cassirer is a very important role in the back.
8. Why did you delete the plot where Geralt met Ciri in the Dryad Forest?
First of all, Ciri's line started with the Siege of Sintra, and the plot of escaping from Wieden and breaking into the Dryad Forest was not on her timeline. Second, there is no sense of existence in the country of Wieden, and there is not much mention in the original book, and the country's uncle Fresnet has never appeared again, so it is normal to remove this character; Third, Geralt and Ciri can completely At the beginning of the second season, the relationship was slowly cultivated on the way to Kyle Mohan. Finally, the most important thing is that if the plot is treated as two meetings a few years apart according to the original setting, the huge impact brought by the convergence of the three lines will be lost.
9. Why kill Mossack?
Because he only appears in the short stories, he is not mentioned once in the longer stories beginning in volume 3. If he doesn't die, the rest of the story doesn't make sense: he didn't go to Ciri, he didn't show up with Visekid, the leader of the Sintra resistance, and he didn't return to Skellige.
To sum up, these adaptations have several common principles: delete irrelevant plots to make the plot more compact; more clearly explain the background of various races (mainly elves); more detailed account of important characters in the main plot (Yennefer, Triss, Cassirer, Fringera, Wigfords). After all, it is a drama, and the way of expression is different from that of the novel. Copying the original book completely is doomed to fail.
View more about The Witcher reviews
