[Gilrond]

Aditya_the_warrior_within said:

LOTR is concerned having read the books a long time ago and seeing the movies it is one of the very few examples I feel the movie was done better than the original source material.

With case of LOTR I won't agree though. Original books are better in comparison. I don't mean that films are bad - they are actually excellent. But they change some key ideas from the books for no valid reasons, which was disappointing. However in their own right - LOTR films are great.

[Ward Dragon]

KnightofPhoenix said:

It's his right.

It's also my right to center my Witcher experience on the games. I have little interest in reading the novels in the foreseeable future. ›››

I agree with you in the sense that the games mean a lot to me and I think of them first and foremost when I think of Geralt. However I do think the books are worth reading

Costin Moroianu said:

With all due respect to CDPR for how they used the game universe I can't say I've seen good adaptations otherwise. LOTR is the best example I can think of and even then there were problems when comparing books to movies.

Regardless, CDPR did do a fantastic job respecting the universe and adapting it to a videogame. I don't think it's fair to discount their work just because a lot of other adaptations are crappy. I mean I don't expect Sapkowski to consider the videogames canon or refer to them in his new novel, but it would be nice if he wasn't so dismissive of the stories in the Witcher games.

Costin Moroianu said:

Also. George R.R. Martin has taken a similar stance with regards to the GoT show. He won't use anything from that in the Song of Ice and Fire books and as a fan of his writing I have only one reaction: Thank God he isn't touching that pile of crap. ›››

Here I disagree I find the novels to be painfully slow and I appreciate the faster pace of the TV show. I don't expect Martin to incorporate any of the TV show changes into his future novels, but I do wish he'd hurry the fuck up (both in terms of story pacing and in terms of when he releases the next novel ).

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

Regardless, CDPR did do a fantastic job respecting the universe and adapting it to a videogame. I don't think it's fair to discount their work just because a lot of other adaptations are crappy. I mean I don't expect Sapkowski to consider the videogames canon or refer to them in his new novel, but it would be nice if he wasn't so dismissive of the stories in the Witcher games.

He wasn't dismissive of them as being good stories, in fact he said he wouldn't comment on their quality, however he noted that he would never consider them as part of the book universe and I agree completely with him on this.

Let CDPR make their games how they want to and let Andrew write his books the way he wants to.

Quote

Here I disagree I find the novels to be painfully slow and I appreciate the faster pace of the TV show. I don't expect Martin to incorporate any of the TV show changes into his future novels, but I do wish he'd hurry the fuck up (both in terms of story pacing and in terms of when he releases the next novel ).

Sure, if you don't mind the lack of subtlety and the butchering of so many awesome parts that are in the books. Like the battle of Green Fork between Tywin and Rose Bolton. In the books Robb takes nine tenths of his entire cavalry force across the twins so he can reach Riverun quickly while sending his entire infantry force as a distraction against Tywin, 16.000 men in total under Rose while Robb has 6.000. In the show Robb sends a meager 2.000 men to distract Tywin while taking rest, including infantry to Riverun?

That move in the show portrays Tywin as an imbecile because he can't figure out that there are a mere 2.000 men until he engages in battle with then and then his messengers can't reach Jaime before Robb does who decided to take his infantry along as well? The reason Robb succeeded was because he had speed thanks to his cavalry.

And what I just said is just the TIP of the iceberg. You may not care about this, but what about Brienne who in the books found killing anyone a nightmare inducing experience whereas in the show she just kills 5 guys in the second season with no regret whatsoever! That ruins her show character and for the record the people she kills in the books are even worse then those stark soldiers.

Then there's Danny.....do I need to rant about why she is so bad in the show? Do I really need to? I can spend HOURS going every single change they made and show the majority of them, not all though, are horrible.

Sure the books are slow but to say the show is great because they are fast paced is an insult to the amazing stories George wrote.

Quote

With case of LOTR I won't agree though. Original books are better in comparison. I don't mean that films are bad - they are actually excellent. But they change some key ideas from the books for no valid reasons, which was disappointing. However in their own right - LOTR films are great.

Yes they are great, but the changes to Boromir ( who tried to take the ring on the mountain pass ), Denethor, Theoden, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, Aragorn etc. are for the worse.

When it's said and done however LOTR movies stand well on their own despite their faults. Game of Thrones however...is just bad.

[KnightofPhoenix]

There's also Tywin in the show not getting off his horse or even bowing when Joffrey made him hand. It looks badass as heck, but is quite politically stupid, aka something Tywin would not do. Tywin would follow protocol to not make a mockery of his grandson in front of the whole realm, which is what he does in the book.

[Costin Moroianu]

KnightofPhoenix said:

There's also Tywin in the show not getting off his horse or even bowing when Joffrey made him hand. It looks badass as heck, but is quite politically stupid, aka something Tywin would not do. Tywin would follow protocol to not make a mockery of his grandson in front of the whole realm, which is what he does in the book. ›››

Except when the horse takes a shit in front of his grandson's throne. I laughed when I read that in the books but in the show the horse takes a shit before even entering the throne room...meh.

[Gilrond]

Costin Moroianu said:

Yes they are great, but the changes to Boromir ( who tried to take the ring on the mountain pass ), Denethor, Theoden, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, Aragorn etc. are for the worse.

Yeah. And Frodo sending Sam back near Mordor because Gollum convinced him? Come on! There are a number of such serious character nature changes which are plain annoying.

[Gilrond]

ElvisX3K said:

Badowskis' remark that, "We want to develop The Witcher's universe in other media, not only video games." is also very interesting. I'd like to see some elaboration on CDPR's plans. ›››

Are they planning to get into Witcher film making?

[Costin Moroianu]

Well CDPR made that comic that you get with the GoG edition. It's pretty nice actually.

Anyway it seems CDPR agrees with Sapkowski on the subjects of what is cannon and what isn't.

[nocny]

(Google Translator)

Sapkowski is not a nice personality. Polish readers know that for a long time. But a good writer is one who is able to hide their bias in the book.

In most cases, the reader does not find his (Sapkowski's) prejudices, so as a writer is good.

On the other hand:
The writer should not hide their own personality and prejudice in interviews, if it is not a hypocrite. And in this case Sapkowski is fine, because it's honest.

I do not like Sapkowski, but I recognize as a good writer. I do not share his views and opinions. However, you should always separate the artist from his work, as long as this author is able to separate their work from yourself.

I am amused by some of the comments that suggest that for many the game is more important than books. In this case, I agree with Sapkowski. As for me, the CDPR's games are only a fan-fiction.

The writer, who treats his readers seriously, he can not refer to another medium to know the story. He can not tell them:
"My story breaks off at this point. Now go buy a computer and the game to continue the story. If you do not, then you will feel confused when you read my next story from the world of The Witcher."

Sapkowski's books were very popular in Poland and Russia. Also in several other countries such as the Czech Republic. That's why the game has success in these countries. People who think that the book has gained popularity thanks to the game are wrong. Well, maybe they are right only in the case of Germany. Because actually in Germany, the book was translated through the game. But if in the case of English, so far there is no official translation, so it has no meaning.

As I wrote in the case of Polish, Russian and several other countries Sapkowski's books have sold very well before the game was released.

[Gilrond]

No one doubts that books popularity boosted the success of the games. Games literally draw on the books, and without them wouldn't even be created.

[wisielec]

People are making wrong assumptions.

Sapkowski is not condescending about adaptations. He states that anything other than the books are just this - adaptations.
What he says may come across as rude or whatever but that doesnt change the fact that the games and other satelite products are not cannon.

There is nothing to be mad about (Slim and others), CDPR knew this from the beginning, they were making alternative world of the witcher with the possibility Sapkowski will make a return with a story contradicting and disregarding games' plot(s).

His take on convergence of the media is a subject to debate on - not to scorn or be angered by. If Sapek feels his work (plot, timeline, events) shouldnt be dispersed across anything other than books, he has the right to and we should accept and respect that. And by that I mean his work, not the work of otheres like CDPR - they may make what they see fit as long as they uphold high quality standards of the licensed material (which CDPR does).
In a nut shell, his Geralt is his Geralt, the orginal and undisputed Adam. The games tell the story of what might have been in the world of witcher.

BTW, he says his next book wont be a pre- or sequel but a sidequel.

[paul_cz]

Is it just me or are people using the term adaptation really strangely ? I always thought adaptation was retelling of the same story in another form or media. But Witcher 1/2 are sequels, they take place after the books and they are not retelling book's stories at all.
I consider them canon and eventhough I love the book saga, as far as I am concerned saga's canon ended with Lady of the Lake. Whatever Sapkowski writes next will be noncanon, if it contradicts the games, for me.

[wisielec]

paul_cz said:

Is it just me or are people using the term adaptation really strangely ? I always thought adaptation was retelling of the same story in another form or media. But Witcher 1/2 are sequels, they take place after the books and they are not retelling book's stories at all. I consider them canon and eventhough I love the book saga, as far as I am concerned saga's canon ended with Lady of the Lake. Whatever Sapkowski writes next will be noncanon, if it contradicts the games, for me.

LoL, it cannot be non-cannon. You may disregard it but cant change the fact that the next book will be cannon

Note: Adaptation [...] can be created as a new (enriched with elements of the author's processor) works created "based on" the original.

[Lyc]

Well, to be fair I suppose I can't blame him for his disdain of media other than books.
After all the his first foray into non-written media ended up spawning the Witcher TV series.

As for the personality of man himself - meh. Who cares. Plently of authors are/were <insert rude word of choice here>. R. Heinlan, H. Ellison, and P.K. Dick for example. Even the early ones like Verne and Wells were unpleasant at times.

Besides he apparently loves cats and I dislike them, so there is disagreement right off the bat.

[wisielec]

*wrong button*

[Sirnaq]

slimgrin said:

The interview kinda blew me away. Not impressed with Andrej at all, or his views which seem arrogant, stuffy, and narrow minded. Let's not forget I wouldn't even know about his world if not for the games. Most authors in the U.S. are bloody grateful to have quality adaptions of their work. It's a compliment, a way to spread their own reputation. All he seems capable of is distancing himself from the hard work CDPR has done as well as their admiration for him. A pretty thankless task they have. ›››

You know, all previous adaptations of his stories were atrocious and video-games in Poland, even now are considered "stuff for children", that view is changing lately but it is still very popular, and for Sapkowski it's silly to make story according to some "toy for kids".

[MM360]

ElvisX3K said:

Badowskis' remark that, "We want to develop The Witcher's universe in other media, not only video games." is also very interesting. I'd like to see some elaboration on CDPR's plans. ›››

You'll see, when the time is right:)

[Pangaea]

Wow, this exploded. Apart from the stuff about stories can only be contained in books, which is taking it a bit too far, I agree with everything he said. He is the original author, the creator of the Witcher world. Without his work, there would be no Witcher games. Of course he shouldn't take what happens in the games into account when writing his own books. That would be stupid and end badly. His story is the canon story, whatever CDPR has written is great stuff, but it's not canon and it's not the original. It's a sequel of sorts, an alternative story to what might have happened (with your default and overused amnesia reboot).

He does come across as a jackass, no dobut about that, but it's his right to have these positions, and mostly he is totally correct, as CDPR also confirm in their addendum to the article. I don't see a reason to get bent out of shape over this. The best stories are in books and that's the way it will always be. Other media like games and movies can also greate great stories from time to time, but for games especially, it's extremely rare, and in most cases those stories are based on existing universes that other people created before them.

As it was discussed above, A Song of Ice and Fire is a good example here. The TV series is good in itself, no doubt about that, but it falls well short of the quality of the books in my mind, especially the second season. Too much diverts, and there is nowhere near the same kind of detail and intrigue. Other aspects are simply missing. IIRC from the TV series, the diversion of Robb in the west was simply gone, while it played a pretty critical role in the book, or would have hadn't somebody fucked up his plans. In the TV series, instead there is lots of cover of the lady he met there. There are many such examples. And don't get me started on the huge season finale battle. That was just a big disappointment in the series. It's understandable they have to cut corners here and there and some things simply can't be done as well in movies and TV series as in books - which I think Sapkowski is on about at the end of the day.