Ciri is practically a demigod. I'm not sure a series about her would be interesting. A series about Yennefer on the other hand ...
The thing about godlike characters is that they can be the main character of a narrative, but only if a) they face opposition above even themselves and/or b) the narrative focuses on exploring the moral struggle inherent to being a god amongst mere mortals. This is why the best Superman stories are those that tackle his potential to be corrupted or otherwise abuse his power.
but in reality it doesn't do shit because they are replacing those who want to leave with those who want to arrive based on said changes. IE: Marvel making "Iron Man" "Ironheart" a female teenager brings in a ton of females to the comic world who otherwise would ignore it.
Are their numbers up or down since that change, don't forget a citation.
I actually both agree and disagree with each of you. On one hand I understand when people get annoyed at what they feel is cultural appropriation. Hollywood has a terrible past of this kind of behavior with spray tanned white actors representing Arabs, Asians, Native Americans, Latinos, etc. While some might feel its social justice for that to behavior to be flipped on its head, I don't agree. I feel that flipping gender/ethnicity just for the sake of being progressive doesn't solve the problem, and can actually be counter productive. Not to mention it feels like rampant tokenism. Let's look at the Ironheart example. Sure its not a bad character but she will always be overshadowed by the Ironman aspect. I'd much rather comics or films create fully rounded characters for these parts, such as they did with Black Panther, the Netflix Luke Cage show, or Mayans MC. Funny though that said, I've actually had no issue enjoying Elba as Heimdall, or Sam Jackson as Nick Fury, because I'm massive fans of both actors, and they both did an excellent job.
I also understand the point of not alienating your fan base, yet also see the wisdom of inclusiveness to garner a larger audience. Oddly enough, people being people, just happen to enjoy watching/reading about characters they can identify with. But there must be a balance. One prime example of this is the Ghost Busters film. First you get the negative buzz over an all female cast, and then the movie is a flop. But, not because it had an all female cast. It flopped because it had a complete turd of a shooting script, which funnily enough was almost note for note, the plot of Ghost Busters two, which starred the original cast and also stunk on ice. Simply gender/ethnicity flipping means fuck all if that's the only gimmick you have.
I agree with both points.
I wonder why they can't just create new characters? Why do they need a crutch so badly?
Look at Ruby Rose playing a lesbian (why?) Batwoman. They couldn't be happy with that, they had to complain that the actress wasn't a real-life lesbian. "Oh, but that's different".
One of my favorite shows was Firefly. Zoe and Bishop (*gasp* who happen to be black) were awesome characters. But, if half way through the season, Bishop was replaced by a White guy, it would be distracting and weird. Or if Kaylee was a dude. Or worse, River was a dude.
The problem isn't just the double standard when it comes to cultural appropriation. It's the 20+ articles with the titles "All Female Cast - suck it White males". That's why I don't go to the movies anymore. I don't feel bad because, well, the movies suck anyways. I will not fund Cultural Marxism. When they make those statements, they are basically saying "Fuck you, White man", and nobody fucks me, except Mrs. Norsegod.
I would have turned this one upside down - should cast a strong female to be the witcher - like this:
Geralt is such a predictable dolt, a female witcher would have been awesome
We have a female Witcher. Her name is Ciri and she is awesome in her own right. I would be happy to see Ciri star in the series and/or get her own series, but there is no need, no narrative purpose, and no apparent desire by the author nor the fanbase at large for putting breasts on Geralt of Rivia.
I hope they make Geralt more interesting - as he is one of the most one-dimensional characters I've seen.
Maybe they rewrite him for the show and make him have some actual depth of character.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've already gone into depth as to why I feel that he is a perfect protagonist for his setting and an excellent vessel for player agency.
Huh - What does this mean to future DC Movies then ?
What future?
Hahaha, beat me to it.
He's not grizzled and rough enough, but he's a good actor and wants the role so maybe he'll pull it off. The movie will probably be way too edgy and gritty for me anyway.
"MARTHA!!!" *sigh* Such wasted potential.
I feel they should have announced Idris Elba for the part just to fuck with people. Though after seeing him as Heimdal in Thor Ragnarok he could certainly play a fantasy badass like Geralt quite well.
Instead of redefining an already existing character,. Why not just make Idris another Witcher that travels with him. W3 had several additional witchers who teamed up with or fought Geralt.
Physically he's fine, but I haven't seen him outside of playing Superman and so I can't judge him as an actor. Those DC films were just poorly written and playing superman doesn't really give an indication of how you'll do in other roles.
He played the Duke of Sussex in The Tudors. He was decent, even when he played the older version of the Duke. I don't particularly like his voice though. But it could be worse IMO.
Can't be as bad as the NA voice actor. He removes all feeling from Geralt. Sounds nothing like the Polish version that expresses forms of emotion from his voice. Geralts NA voice actor sounds as deep as single ply toilet paper is thick.
Part of the Witcher mutation results in them having a lack of emotion. The voice actor was spot on for the character. Did you play the game? Lol.
I'm sure the 5 people who still believe in the Norse religion were very offended.
Or anyone that values heritage, history, traditions, and culture. Just saying, people are paying attention to these little insults a lot more these days; they are not going unnoticed anymore.
If you need an example, look how smug Marvel Comics was when they forced their changes. Look how smug they are now lol. Or Star Wars. Or Ghostbusters 2016. Ocean's 8. The new Terminator movie. The new Predator movie. Battlefield 5. Mass Affect 4. etc etc. Shitting on your biggest group of fans is bad for your bank account these days. I'll let the money debate this topic.
Insult? Explain what you mean by insult. Nothing is insulting about adding a black character to a fantasy superhero movie even if the character is supposed to be based on Norse religion. Who cares because its fantasy. Its not a documentary about Norse Mythology. It's just as believable as a blonde hair, blue eyed, European man from the middle east who can heal the sick and raise the dead.
People like yourself, want to believe it hurts the bottom line of whatever it is, but in reality it doesn't do shit because they are replacing those who want to leave with those who want to arrive based on said changes. IE: Marvel making "Iron Man" "Ironheart" a female teenager brings in a ton of females to the comic world who otherwise would ignore it. Data shows females influence 80% of consumer spending across all industries. So win for Marvel.
You would be surprised at how well this actually would do if they capitalize on the comic and turn it into a film (Personally I would love a Iron Heart film) Yea it may make someone like yourself upset, but Marvel wont lose any sleep when they see the money start rolling in. Change can be a good thing. I don't get this whole narrative that somehow catering to a new audience somehow means they are shitting on the old audience. Catering to a new audience just means they are expanding the brand, taking new ideas, adding them to old ones to make new IPs. There is no reason why Iron Heart can't be as big or lucrative as Iron Man. The comic is only a step in the right direction as far as creating something new. Its okay, its not the end of the world.
I PERSONALLY prefer a Polish Actor to play Geralt because of my fandom and wanting the show to be a 1:1 recreation but it doesn't have to be. If Idris Elba would have gotten the part it still would've been cool. The important part isn't his skin its if he can be Geralt of Rivia. Idris is talented enough to pull it off. That's important. I heard he is also in the front of the race for the next James Bond.
He probably didn't read your response. Burning Nikes is a long process when you forget to take them off first lol.
I would have turned this one upside down - should cast a strong female to be the witcher - like this:
Geralt is such a predictable dolt, a female witcher would have been awesome
Great point. The weakness in the series, to me, is Geralt. I think the IP would have been better served to have the world and profession of a Witcher be the main focus, not Geralt. He could have been a character in the series but with the game series even moving on to other characters in future installments there was no need for him to be the focus.
I completely get your point. But the 3 Witcher games are based on the books that have him as the protagonist. So it makes sense that the game followed suit. But fortunately for you, CD Projeck has said that this is the end of Geralts story and any future games will not have him. Think of these 3 games as the 3 LOTR books. The future games will be more like the LOTR mmo where you will make your own avatar.
I don't know if anyone already said, but I'll add: he is a huge fan of the games and books. He played The Witcher 3 twice recently (full playthoughs) and read all the books (according to interviews).
He is such a great actor and I'm really happy with their pick for Geralt.
Him being a huge gamer is really awesome. You know he will put his all into this because it's a passion to him. I remember his response when he was cast as Superman "I missed Zach Snyder's call because I was playing WoW" lol.
I would have turned this one upside down - should cast a strong female to be the witcher - like this:
Geralt is such a predictable dolt, a female witcher would have been awesome
Also, I do find it strange that you call Geralt one-dimensional while you hold up Brienne of Tarth as an ideal. Brienne is a great character and role model for what she is, but she doesn't grow as a character. She can be wholly summed up with the words "tough and honorable lady knight who keeps her oaths," and never really grows into or defies that from beginning to end.
She's certainly no Jaime Lannister, one of the best characters in all of fiction, who develops from an unlikeable, incestuous scumbag of a knight to a misunderstood, but lovable political anti-hero. She's no Sansa Stark, whose hardships turn her from a naive little girl into a manipulative apprentice politician. There are a great many characters in Game of Thrones (both male and female) who develop more than Brienne, because the entirety of her positive character traits have been hers from the beginning.
I want a film based on the books and games, that means based
around Geralt and looking like him, Not based on the ideas of people who I am
not even fans of the series. Thanks.
Huh - What does this mean to future DC Movies then ?
What future?
Hahaha, beat me to it.
He's not grizzled and rough enough, but he's a good actor and wants the role so maybe he'll pull it off. The movie will probably be way too edgy and gritty for me anyway.
"MARTHA!!!" *sigh* Such wasted potential.
I feel they should have announced Idris Elba for the part just to fuck with people. Though after seeing him as Heimdal in Thor Ragnarok he could certainly play a fantasy badass like Geralt quite well.
Maybe a non-white Ciri could work. I mean, the Nilfgaardians are also racially caucasian, but presenting them as another race could be a fast shorthand to distinguish them visually from the northern kingdoms that they're invading. Making them arabic, for example, could draw some interesting parallels to the real world Ottoman Empire's invasions of Europe.
I still don't agree with that decision, but I could see a legitimate reason for it.
Huh - What does this mean to future DC Movies then ?
What future?
Hahaha, beat me to it.
He's not grizzled and rough enough, but he's a good actor and wants the role so maybe he'll pull it off. The movie will probably be way too edgy and gritty for me anyway.
"MARTHA!!!" *sigh* Such wasted potential.
I feel they should have announced Idris Elba for the part just to fuck with people. Though after seeing him as Heimdal in Thor Ragnarok he could certainly play a fantasy badass like Geralt quite well.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Demographics. Market research. Black Panther made a veritable mountain of moolah. We'll look cool.
Poland, while fairly homogeneous, still has finno-ugraic and latin connections. Vikings themselves hauled slaves back from Morocco to Turkey.
A.K.A. overthinking it
If a book IP has never had a visual medium representation you'd have more latitude for who you cast for what, still at the risk of alienating the hard core fans of the books, but you do have some.
But when something has already appeared in a visual form, and a hugely popular one at that, changing genders and race of key characters just seems goofy and like I said, forced.
If they wanted to follow their market research for more bucks they could easily introduce brand new secondary characters of whatever gender and ethnicity they want to use and give them prominent roles. The Witcher universe has a lot of room for additions. Messing with Geralt and Ciri is just wrong.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't think they know that fucking up Ciri is almost as bad (if not worse) than fucking up Geralt. If this would happen pre-Witcher 3 it would not be that big of a deal, but at this timeline you don't mess with Ciri - you just don't.
And at this timeline you don't mess with Siri - you just don't.
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Demographics. Market research. Black Panther made a veritable mountain of moolah. We'll look cool.
Poland, while fairly homogeneous, still has finno-ugraic and latin connections. Vikings themselves hauled slaves back from Morocco to Turkey.
A.K.A. overthinking it
If a book IP has never had a visual medium representation you'd have more latitude for who you cast for what, still at the risk of alienating the hard core fans of the books, but you do have some.
But when something has already appeared in a visual form, and a hugely popular one at that, changing genders and race of key characters just seems goofy and like I said, forced.
If they wanted to follow their market research for more bucks they could easily introduce brand new secondary characters of whatever gender and ethnicity they want to use and give them prominent roles. The Witcher universe has a lot of room for additions. Messing with Geralt and Ciri is just wrong.
But I like overthinking!
Your point's good though.
Maybe they can find a Finnish gal actor. Or a Sami. Whoever, hope she's dang good, for her sake.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
It looks like it's going to be a disaster in the making. Good thing the games exist though, so regardless of the quality of the TV series, there's that. Lots of books didn't have even that.
Huh - What does this mean to future DC Movies then ?
What future?
Hahaha, beat me to it.
He's not grizzled and rough enough, but he's a good actor and wants the role so maybe he'll pull it off. The movie will probably be way too edgy and gritty for me anyway.
"MARTHA!!!" *sigh* Such wasted potential.
I feel they should have announced Idris Elba for the part just to fuck with people. Though after seeing him as Heimdal in Thor Ragnarok he could certainly play a fantasy badass like Geralt quite well.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As for James Bond, lol
I wonder why they can't just create new characters? Why do they need a crutch so badly?
Look at Ruby Rose playing a lesbian (why?) Batwoman. They couldn't be happy with that, they had to complain that the actress wasn't a real-life lesbian. "Oh, but that's different".
One of my favorite shows was Firefly. Zoe and Bishop (*gasp* who happen to be black) were awesome characters. But, if half way through the season, Bishop was replaced by a White guy, it would be distracting and weird. Or if Kaylee was a dude. Or worse, River was a dude.
The problem isn't just the double standard when it comes to cultural appropriation. It's the 20+ articles with the titles "All Female Cast - suck it White males". That's why I don't go to the movies anymore. I don't feel bad because, well, the movies suck anyways. I will not fund Cultural Marxism. When they make those statements, they are basically saying "Fuck you, White man", and nobody fucks me, except Mrs. Norsegod.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmfFT2iORVg
(1:29 in the video if you want to skip right to Henry)
She's certainly no Jaime Lannister, one of the best characters in all of fiction, who develops from an unlikeable, incestuous scumbag of a knight to a misunderstood, but lovable political anti-hero. She's no Sansa Stark, whose hardships turn her from a naive little girl into a manipulative apprentice politician. There are a great many characters in Game of Thrones (both male and female) who develop more than Brienne, because the entirety of her positive character traits have been hers from the beginning.
I want a film based on the books and games, that means based around Geralt and looking like him, Not based on the ideas of people who I am not even fans of the series. Thanks.
They must have read your post.
https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/09/07/the-witcher-netflix-series-ciri-white-changes/
I still don't agree with that decision, but I could see a legitimate reason for it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Poland, while fairly homogeneous, still has finno-ugraic and latin connections. Vikings themselves hauled slaves back from Morocco to Turkey.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
If a book IP has never had a visual medium representation you'd have more latitude for who you cast for what, still at the risk of alienating the hard core fans of the books, but you do have some.
But when something has already appeared in a visual form, and a hugely popular one at that, changing genders and race of key characters just seems goofy and like I said, forced.
If they wanted to follow their market research for more bucks they could easily introduce brand new secondary characters of whatever gender and ethnicity they want to use and give them prominent roles. The Witcher universe has a lot of room for additions. Messing with Geralt and Ciri is just wrong.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Your point's good though.
Maybe they can find a Finnish gal actor. Or a Sami. Whoever, hope she's dang good, for her sake.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.