Current Events > Witcher fans: ''I love Geralt. he's a human, but an outcast. people judge him

(+) Yeah! (+)

_BIueMonk posted...

I'm saying praising the witchers character traits and then being a racist is idiotic.

Being a racist is idiotic no matter what.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Fringilla being black doesn't really matter. Triss though is bad casting, she's way to old. The books specifically make mention of her youthful appearance multiple times. Also the not having red hair thing is annoying since it's also heavily leaned on on the books. Does it "ruin the show" or "shit on the source material" like i've seen people screeching about? No. Not even a little bit.

The actress is only 27 years old
---

DeathDeathSong posted...

ummmmmmmmmmmmm

Now go back and read what I wrote instead of cutting the full text out to push your narrative.

---

Triss having red hair is not "heavily leaned on" in the books. Honestly Triss has a really bare bones role in the books period. She's a secondary character at best and I can't think of a single time where her appearance is important at all.

and yeah reading that first post screeching about Geralt sparing monsters is really eye-rolling. He makes a very clear and obvious point in the books about not killing sentient monsters who aren't actively trying to harm people (The Beauty and the Beast analog story, the golden dragon story, the doppler who steals his face, Regis, etc etc etc). It's the same way in the games too. A lot of stories with monsters like that in the games give you a chance to kill them if you really want to but almost always give you a chance to spare them or break a curse if possible, and that's almost always portrayed as the better path.


---

Isn't Triss said to have chestnut hair?

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Smashingpmkns posted...

The actress is only 27 years old

Yes and she looks quite a bit older than that. I work with a guy who is 53 and looks 70. It happens. Like I said, does it really matter? No. So long as the characterization is correct, which so far it has been.

https://images.app.goo.gl/yV8ARod4xep4htby9

Looks younger to me tbh but yeah it doesn't matter.
---

FabIemaster posted...

So no complaints with the casting. My only real gripe is that having read the books, it would've helped non-fans if the jumping around in time with the storylines had been labeled to make it easier to follow.

KnightofShikari posted...

i'm more annoying with triss appearing way older than she should, as well as the weird jumping around the timeline. should have just adapted the books chronologically for the most part, but then we wouldn't have ciri for a while. the casting might make problems in the future since some of the cast that is now black is related to others so unless they just ignore the blood relation and cast differently it's going to be weird.

This is really blown out of proportion.

First off, there are plenty of moments in the show that reveal the timeline. The first and second episodes have some low-key hints and the third episode all but flat out tells you. Yeah you have to look to see it but it's not like it's hiding. Get off your phone and you'll pick it up.
Second off, the show isn't Westworld level of timelines. Each character is moving forward, there's no skipping back and forth personal timelines.
Third, the second half of the show everyone should realize there are multiple timelines. At this point, everything clicks anyway.
And lastly, the enjoyment of the show does not depend on you understanding that the protagonists are not in sync for most of the season.

I see far more "but think of the non-book readers" than of people without.
I've only ever played Witcher 3 and I put together it was different timelines before the end of the second episode.

---