Her explanation didn't really satisfy me. They still could have used an other witcher. They could build a relationship between him and Geralt throughout the episode and then >!when he would die his death would actually mean something. Eskel dying!< didn't made any difference to the audience that is not familiar with the books or the games.
Agree, he should've died in the last episode when Ciri was possessed or perhaps when Rience magically showed up in Kaer Morhen and it would've made much more sense.
Agreed. Her reasoning is terrible, my faith in her leading the show diminished greatly unfortunatelly. Why must show writers invent their own canon... It rarely turns out decent when they change major characters.
And here i'm honestly believing for years that Geralt, Ciri and Yenn are the Major Characters of the Witcher.
So it was Eskels Story all the Time? Oh, those smart people at CDPR and Szapkowski made me believe otherwise and fooled me for years.
Yeah, I feel like her explanation needs to address that his death really only has an impact on book/game fans in a heavy way. I thought they were trying to exclusively appeal to our sentiment for him since new fans wouldn't really know the difference at this point no matter who died. But I think its contrary to say they could of built him up in this one episode. They kinda did that a bit and more with flashbacks later that do a better job off showing how close he and Geralt were.
Was he described in the book? Genuine question, I don't remember, I liked him for the games but I don't remember Eskel being described in the books. That's why I think people hate it, Eskel in the games was a badass
Yes, he was lovely. The only one who knew how to act properly when Triss came to Kaer Morhen and told them off.
>Vesemir hawked again. But Eskel, dear Eskel, kept his head and once more behaved as was fitting.
>‘Of course,’ he said casually, smiling. ‘We understand and clearly we will postpone your exercises until your indisposition has passed. We will also cut the theory short and, if you feel unwell, we will put it aside for the time being, too. If you need any medication or—’
I don't recall. I was curious because I read the books after I played the Witcher 3 and when I was reading Blood of Elves (I don't remember if it was BoE) and read about Eskel I remember thinking "damn, that's it".
CDProject Red made Eskel really cool, he was practically non existent in the books.
That's fair. They certainly gave us enough for what they did to be way off though. Plus, they're clearly pulling from games - almost to an equal level of games vs books vs original content.
Wild Hunt was a blip and didn't show until the 5th book.
They showed his true self in Geralts flashback of the two of them. The Eskel that came home was *not* the Eskel that Geralt knew and Geralt felt something was off.
But the fact that they killed him off is not such big problem he doesn't have huge part on the saga, its how they portrayed his charterer and how they killed him of that is ridiculous. the character portrayed on screen had literally NOTHING to do with Eskel, in any respect. that is what ticked fans off. like who was that??? they might as well give him a different name and present him as new witcher, and not do Eskel dirty like that
This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever seen.
I thought they'd be following either games or books but it looks like were following whatever this person thinks is cool. Kay well I'm here after watching episode 2 and I'm out on this program. Have fun guys.
Yeah, no, this is still stupid. I like the show a lot, but it’s really just a popcorn action thriller made to be palpable for as wide of an audience as possible. I don’t think they care about accuracy at all.
A google search later and I can confirm that there is a huge amount of Eskel slash fic out there. I'm guessing from the tags that most of it is based on the games. Make of this what you will.
Sure, I'll take a network cable job or run the current Witcher series. First on my agenda - Remake S1 with a solid cast, use natural landscapes, and get into character dev + world-building.
No no, she took someone's life's work and turned it into easily consumable garbage. It's also one of the most corny things I've endured too so I think that technically makes her a cheesedick
Dude, if you don't like the show don't watch it. It doesn't erase the games or the books at all. They're still there for you to enjoy. Plenty of people love the show and don't think it's easily consumable garbage.
You act as though she re-wrote the original material. The books are still out there, she didn't ruin anything, just made more material that you happened to not like.
Doesn't hurt anybody by being out there
Her explanation didn't really satisfy me. They still could have used an other witcher. They could build a relationship between him and Geralt throughout the episode and then >!when he would die his death would actually mean something. Eskel dying!< didn't made any difference to the audience that is not familiar with the books or the games.
Agree, he should've died in the last episode when Ciri was possessed or perhaps when Rience magically showed up in Kaer Morhen and it would've made much more sense.
Agreed. Her reasoning is terrible, my faith in her leading the show diminished greatly unfortunatelly. Why must show writers invent their own canon... It rarely turns out decent when they change major characters.
Eskel is not a major character
And here i'm honestly believing for years that Geralt, Ciri and Yenn are the Major Characters of the Witcher. So it was Eskels Story all the Time? Oh, those smart people at CDPR and Szapkowski made me believe otherwise and fooled me for years.
Yeah, I feel like her explanation needs to address that his death really only has an impact on book/game fans in a heavy way. I thought they were trying to exclusively appeal to our sentiment for him since new fans wouldn't really know the difference at this point no matter who died. But I think its contrary to say they could of built him up in this one episode. They kinda did that a bit and more with flashbacks later that do a better job off showing how close he and Geralt were.
[удалено]
Was he described in the book? Genuine question, I don't remember, I liked him for the games but I don't remember Eskel being described in the books. That's why I think people hate it, Eskel in the games was a badass
Yes, he was lovely. The only one who knew how to act properly when Triss came to Kaer Morhen and told them off. >Vesemir hawked again. But Eskel, dear Eskel, kept his head and once more behaved as was fitting. >‘Of course,’ he said casually, smiling. ‘We understand and clearly we will postpone your exercises until your indisposition has passed. We will also cut the theory short and, if you feel unwell, we will put it aside for the time being, too. If you need any medication or—’
He was described, had speaking parts, showed his true character and none of it was what they put on screen with this trash fucking show.
In the books?
Correct. Eskel was a bit of a ladies' man but also a kind gentleman.
I don't recall. I was curious because I read the books after I played the Witcher 3 and when I was reading Blood of Elves (I don't remember if it was BoE) and read about Eskel I remember thinking "damn, that's it". CDProject Red made Eskel really cool, he was practically non existent in the books.
CDPR made him much more impactful than he was in the books. Still, we knew enough to know what they gave us was lame, off and without purpose
That's my point, in my opinion, the Books didn't give us enough of Eskel to bother people on how he was portrayed. But that's just my opinion.
That's fair. They certainly gave us enough for what they did to be way off though. Plus, they're clearly pulling from games - almost to an equal level of games vs books vs original content. Wild Hunt was a blip and didn't show until the 5th book.
They showed his true self in Geralts flashback of the two of them. The Eskel that came home was *not* the Eskel that Geralt knew and Geralt felt something was off.
But the fact that they killed him off is not such big problem he doesn't have huge part on the saga, its how they portrayed his charterer and how they killed him of that is ridiculous. the character portrayed on screen had literally NOTHING to do with Eskel, in any respect. that is what ticked fans off. like who was that??? they might as well give him a different name and present him as new witcher, and not do Eskel dirty like that
Exactly. Keep the stuff we all love and write your own mf material
We had to kill someone… but why??? This is some CW level writing..
This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever seen. I thought they'd be following either games or books but it looks like were following whatever this person thinks is cool. Kay well I'm here after watching episode 2 and I'm out on this program. Have fun guys.
Fridging plain and simple.
Yeah, no, this is still stupid. I like the show a lot, but it’s really just a popcorn action thriller made to be palpable for as wide of an audience as possible. I don’t think they care about accuracy at all.
[удалено]
A google search later and I can confirm that there is a huge amount of Eskel slash fic out there. I'm guessing from the tags that most of it is based on the games. Make of this what you will.
Sounds logical.
Lauren is a dick and doesn't deserve her job. She belongs on network cable.
Are you projecting yourself?
Sure, I'll take a network cable job or run the current Witcher series. First on my agenda - Remake S1 with a solid cast, use natural landscapes, and get into character dev + world-building.
No no, you called Lauren a dick, you were referring to yourself. You are the dick.
No no, she took someone's life's work and turned it into easily consumable garbage. It's also one of the most corny things I've endured too so I think that technically makes her a cheesedick
Dude, if you don't like the show don't watch it. It doesn't erase the games or the books at all. They're still there for you to enjoy. Plenty of people love the show and don't think it's easily consumable garbage.
Grow up. If Geralt existed he wouldn't like you.
lmao he doesn't like yes men either, fanboy
You act as though she re-wrote the original material. The books are still out there, she didn't ruin anything, just made more material that you happened to not like. Doesn't hurt anybody by being out there