❗❗SPOILERS SO BE WARNED IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE SHOW❗❗
Disclaimer: ALL PICTURES PROPERTY OF NETFLIX
Written by H.E. Smale
Season two of Netflix's 'The Witcher' premiered two years after season one (thank you, Covid) and almost immediately, the changes made from the second season were evident, though not all for a good reason.
Between finishing season one and the release of season two, I bought and read through all the books, eagerly continuing on the journey across The Continent with Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri, unable to wait for season two to drop and bring with it a continuation of the story.
The books were excellent: a stereotypical vivid fantasy adventure of magic and mayhem.
But most importantly, I could immediately see how different and more in-depth the books were to the show, with added stories that brought more plot development and character depth.
Obviously, with any book-to-screen adaptation comes cuts and changes - it's impractical and, most of the time, impossible to recount everything in the source material.
However, in the case of The Witcher, the changes made left me (and many other fans) feeling confused and, in some cases, annoyed at how, in my opinion, they had betrayed the characters and the story.
The most noticeable change I was left questioning was how the show had decided to create a new storyline and, in doing so, disregarded the original books almost entirely.
Not only do the changes made in season two make little sense, but they also prove inconvenient for the continuation of the story in the third season (which I will discuss in another post about Season 3).
However, I didn't dislike everything about Season Two.
So, here are a few of the main takeaways I either liked or disliked from Netflix's season two of The Witcher.
-------------------------------------------------
The father/daughter bond between Geralt and Ciri
In the show, Geralt and Ciri meet for the first time at the end of season one after they finally find each other in the forest after the fall of Cintra.
However, in the books, they meet before this story when Ciri is around ten years old, and the two find themselves travelling through Brokilon forest with the dryads.
Although brief, this added interaction allows for a connection to be established before they meet later on, leading to their finding each other being more emotionally impactful.
Ciri knows who Geralt is and knows that she will be safe with him, and Geralt, despite his previous reluctance and avoidance, has finally accepted his Child Suprise.
In many ways, it is a situation of father and daughter finally united.
However, because this was missing from the show, a scene that should have been full of emotion for both, felt flat due to the lack of time establishing an existing relationship between them.
She didn't even know what he looked like!
If it weren't for "destiny" pulling them together, would she even have known who he was?
However, thankfully in season two we finally get to see that father/daughter relationship start to build and develop, with Geralt beginning Ciri's training at Kear Morhen and providing her with protection and support as she navigates many struggles during the season.
The Killing of Eskel
The killing of Eskel (played by Basil Eidenbenz), I felt, displayed not only a lack of respect for the source material but also how ineffective the writing has become.
In both the books and the games, Eskel is a recurring character.
He is one of the last witchers at Kaer Morhen, along with Vesimir, Geralt, Lambert and Coen.
He is Geralt's brother in arms, and the bond between them and the affection they share for one another is evident.
Therefore, the choice to kill Eskel is an odd one for two reasons: for one, he is a member of Geralt's family (who isn't meant to die during this story), and two, his death has no emotional impact anyway.
This was the biggest issue I found with his death.
If done right, his death could have been as moving as when Geralt met his mother at the end of season one. He is his brother after all, and so his death would have been emotional.
But Eskel was introduced at the start of the episode and provided no opportunities for the characters, or us as the audience, to empathise or develop an attachment with him before he was killed at the end of that episode.
Granted, he was slowly being infected by the Leshy (which explains his hostile behaviour), but his death feels void of any emotion because we haven't known him for long and during that time, he hasn't displayed a strong connection with the other characters aside from a hug from Geralt when he enters the keep.
On the contrary, he tried to start a fight with Geralt after he brought a group of prostitutes to the keep, which Geralt then objected to.
Ultimately, his death felt flat, and instead of killing a character who canonically doesn't die, the writers could have chosen to kill one of the other witchers in the keep who weren't part of the original story, as we spend even less time getting to know any of them, so their death would have resulted in the same effect instead of choosing to kill a character beloved by book and game fans.
Mother Nenneke at The Temple of Melitele
The interactions with Mother Nenneke (played by Adjoa Andoh) at the Temple of Melitele were very enjoyable. I thought Andoh perfectly brought to screen the loving but stern presence of Mother Nenneke as not only a tutor for Ciri but also a mother figure for both her and Geralt, similar to Vesemir.
It's a shame that she wasn't given more screen time due to the changes made in the story.
The Introduction of The Monoliths being gateways to other spheres
Right off the bat, the monoliths (or obelisks, as they are also referred to) acting as gateways to other spheres in the show is not something that happens in the books and is not, in any way, a part of the original story.
I have since learned that they appear in one of the games as part of opening an abandoned mage's tower outside Vizima, but they do not act as gateways to other spheres.
Overall, I think the biggest issue with the plot is not that it does nothing for the story.
In fact, after consideration, I believe it is an interesting way to eventually reveal Ciri's ability to travel to different spheres (which we see her doing later in the books) and an effective way of giving us our first look at The Wild Hunt.
However, the problems this plot brings us are that it subsequently leads to further changes to the story which affect relationships between other characters.
In particular, with Yennefer and her interactions with the daemon Voleth Meir (another new addition to the show), who we later learn originates from one of these other spheres.
When she realises they have been re-activated by Ciri she persuades Yennefer to try and bring her Ciri in return for her missing magic, which she lost after tapping into fire magic at the Battle of Sodden at the end of season one.
Therefore, creating this situation in which Yennefer is trying to take Ciri to the daemon to get her magic back replaces the time that should have been spent building their mother/daughter bond, subsequently leading to any motherly actions on Yennefer's behalf in season three (such as pet names) falling flat of emotion because that bond is either non-existent or not strong enough.
Overall, this second season was definitely a step down compared to the first, which set up a promising story for a show. But it wasn't without its aforementioned redeeming moments sprinkled throughout.
It hasn't dissuaded me from abandoning the show. On the contrary, it makes me want to see what their plans are if they are so determined to create their own story away from the books. But it definitely has me worried and wondering whether these changes will be any good and restore the show to the glory it gained after the release of season one, or have the showrunners shot themselves in the foot with these changes and sealed the show's fate?
Comments
Post a Comment