The Witcher – How Many Creative Liberties are Too Many

Fans of Andrzej Sapkowski’s fantasy book series The Witcher and their corresponding video games were ecstatic to find out that Netflix was adapting Sapkowski’s work into a TV show. The first season came in 2019 and the second in 2021, and while the show garnered a lot of viewers, it wasn’t without criticism.

Fans of the book series and games were accusing the showrunners of distorting the source material and using a lot of creative licenses with the characters and stories. The show is under even more fire lately due to Henry Cavill’s (Geralt of Rivia) surprising exit from the series, which is blamed on the showrunners’ disregard of the original book source.

In this article, we’ll mention the most egregious creative liberties taken in the show and we’ll explore some fan theories as to whether the show creators respect the book series or not and whether that led to Cavill’s departure.

The Worst Things About the TV Adaptation

We’ll use this section to list our least favourite deviations from the book series and more broadly, some bad creative decisions in the show. Warning: there will be spoilers to season 1 and 2 of The Witcher:

• No Slavic actors – for a show that hails itself as being progressive and diverse, there isn’t a single Slavic actor in a main or supporting role (NB: there are three Slavic actors with either no lines or very few lines). This is problematic for two reasons: 1) Sapkowski is Slavic and he used Slavic folklore to create his fantasy world; 2) Slavs are rarely represented in Hollywood and when they are, they usually have stereotypical roles like that of the gold-digging mail-order-bride or the Bond-esque villain.
• Timeline – the first season was heavily criticised for its timeline, which would jump back and forward in time. This was done to introduce three characters simultaneously (Geralt, Ciri and Yennefer) who were all born many years apart, but still, if you need an info graph to understand the timeline, then the show didn’t do its job.
• Simplified characters and stories – the show crammed a lot of information in its first season, which led to oversimplified characters and stories. Renfri is the biggest victim of that.
• General lack of nuance – moral ambiguity is at the heart of the book series, but the show often fails to capture that by representing very black-and-white characters/events (another shoutout to Renfri).
• Dialogue – the dialogue is often stilted and flat, while the humour is generally childish and filled with curse words for no reason. Season 2 improved the dialogue, but there’s more room for change.
• Geralt’s and Yennefer’s relationship – in the first season, Geralt and Yennefer meet twice, but between these two meetings, the viewer is supposed to fill in the long romantic conflict between the two, which is barely represented in the show.
• Eskel – Eskel, a Witcher and close friend of Geralt, is killed in his first appearance, which robbed us of a great character.
• Yennefer and Ciri – in the books, the two of them have a parent-child relationship, while the show represented Yenn as cold-hearted and indifferent to Ciri, even willing to sacrifice her.
• Vesemir – his character is changed for the worse. Show-Vesimir is not the stoic Witcher mentor, but just another player in the game for power.
• Ciri’s father – Ciri’s father is revealed to be the Nilfgardian emperor in season 2. While this sticks to the books, the revelation came much later in the story, which arguably messed up the suspense.

Dismissal of the Book Series?

There is this pertaining theory that the show creators actually dislike Sapkowski’s books and refuse to do them justice on purpose. While many films and shows based on books have been criticised on how they handled the adaptation aspect, very few filmmakers or showrunners have been blamed for actively disliking and purposefully distorting the source material.

The fact that this topic comes up so often makes us believe there’s an inkling of truth in it. The debate was rekindled a few months ago when Henry Cavill surprisingly left the show. Cavill is known for being a big fan of the books and games and an encyclopaedia of Witcher facts (according to his co-stars).

Cavill famously said in an interview that he was a fan of the books and “staying loyal to them”; considering the fact that the showrunners have taken too many liberties with them, could that be the reason for his exit? Still, their use of creative license doesn’t prove the rumour that the showrunners and screenwriters dislike the books.

So where did the rumour come from then? One of the more reliable sources to this theory is Beau DeMayo, a former writer for the show. He claimed in a Q&A session that the writers’ room was full of people who openly expressed dislike for the books and even mocked them.

This is strong evidence in support of the rumour since it comes from someone intimately involved in the production. Lauren S.Hissrich, the showrunner, denied these rumours, but many fans find it hard to believe her.

It should be noted that the gossip surrounding the dislike of the source material started way before DeMayo’s revelation, so it’s likely that it came from another source, which implies yet again that such dislike exists.

Returning to Cavill’s exit, some speculated he left in order to resume his role as Superman, but these early theories have proven to be false, because DC announced that Cavill would not play the iconic role in an upcoming film (or maybe ever again).

What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you think the show betrayed the books and/or that the writing staff don’t respect them? Let us know!