Netflix Announces Return Of "The Voice Of Geralt" In New Witcher Animation

Bringing in Doug Cockle to voice Geralt alone is incredible. Super excited to see how this turns out.

I enjoyed the other shows so far so this should be good.

How do you like that steel !!?

Netflix's "The Witcher" was one of the greatest modern examples of baby internet rage and how entitled and mindless "fandom" has become.

Everyone flipped out because he own carried ONE SWORD AROUND, unlike in the game where he had his silver and normal sword on him at all times. It was an OUTRAGE that they would move away from the source material like that. Purest all over even threatened to boycott unless it was changed back to how it always was!

Only in the books he leaves his silver sword with Roach or even at home unless he KNOWS he's about to a fight a monster, because silver is expensive and makes really weak weapons that would break if he carried them around all the time.

Next they flipped out over changing Dandelion's name. But that's character's name is "Buttercup" (or Jaskier in polish) in the books, so the Netflix series got it right.

We just pick some arbitrary time where things were the was you remember them and say THAT was the pure and correct way. People argue that change is bad, and we should leave things the way there are ... even though the way they are is the result of change.

So it's prefect symmetry that the series is going to go in a new direction, returning to an old voice actor, and we'll get even more outrage about how they "changed" from the correct and "original" voice actor, Henry Cavill.

Personally, I loved the books, I loved the games, I loved the live action, and I'm probably going to love this. I hope it brings in even more fans to the series.

Love the books. Love the games. Liked season 1 of the show. Everything after that was boring, hot garbage or both.

@PateloDim hmmm….winds howling….

@gamerswereamistake Yeah it felt like an episode from the first season but then fell off a cliff fast.

@HeadPirate I think the outrage over the scrotum armour was well deserved. Most ridiculous looking thing ever.

@gamerswereamistake I agree, and I think episode 1 of season 2 being as good as it was doomed that whole season in a way. It peaked right away and was never going to top that.

Sweet! Maybe it won’t have all the woke agenda politics too.

Well, it's gotta be an improvement over Netflix's live action Witcher series, which is among the boringest, most cinematically amateurish s--t I've ever seen.

Is anyone that wrote and/or ran the live action going to be involved? If so, then that’s a hard no.

@HeadPirate Fans need to gatekeep harder when it comes to how properties are handled. When you have a show runner that disregard lore for modern day messaging, of course fans are going to be pissed. And rightfully so.

Damn, you're ugly!

@HeadPirate Fandom should be "entitled". It's their right to expect a good quality product. Honestly the idea that fans are "too entitled" is the most anti-consumer corporate propaganda I've seen in this decade.
The Netflix series was really mediocre for reasons other than Geralt carrying one sword or Jaskier's name. I've never seen anyone complain about the first one. It was the odd changes to the storylines and casting clearly motivated by agenda (outright admitted by the creators) that had fans raging.
Personally I think the biggest crime was making Geralt antagonistic towards Jaskier. In the books they really were best friends, even if Jaskier often got them in trouble. But Geralt was always delighted to see him.

Hmmmmm.
I wonder what will Polish dub be like. In games Geralt is voiced by Jacek Rozenek, but the Netflix show had Michał Żebrowski voicing Geralt (the guy who played him in the old "Hexer" version).

Seriously ? A mermaid in The Witcher?! Who invented it? Sirens do not belong to Slavic demonology. They match The Witcher like strawberry jam for French fries.

@gamerswereamistake
Yes. Yes. Yes. It felt self contained, focused and character driven, without any of the detracting noise and constant jumping around the rest of the show does.

@SmaggTheSmug

What's that have to do with anything I said?

I make the specific comment about being entitled to thing the way you remember them. That the show needs to be like the games if you played the game first, or the show needs to be like the books if you read the books first. It is absolute entitlement to think that YOU, not the people working on the project, get to direct the creative vision, or that any content creator is obligated to treat the source material with respect for your head-cannon.

I then tie that to a general trend of modern conservatism, where we pick the way things "were" and want to go back to that, forgetting that it was only the freedom to change and move past traditional ideals that got us to that point in the first place. It's a idea generally called "Nostalgia for an age that never existed". Like how people got upset because Superman killed Zod in MOS, because they knew Superman from the morning cartoons where he was a sanitized character ... ingoing the fact that he kills Zod in several comic continuities and the 1980 film because he hasn't really had a big problem with killing for MOST of his existence and has even restored to flat out murder in post crisis core continuity.

I made absolutely no comment on quality. Quality can be good or bad regardless of what vison they go with. You can have a good show that is just like the books or a bad show that is just like the books. Superman killing Zod isn't a big part of the quality of that movie as a whole, it's just a point some people feel "betrayed" the character, because they feel entitled to a Superman that really only exists in their head. Quality isn't my point. My point is who decides that it has to be "like the books" or "Superman doesn't kill" and who cries like a baby when it isn't they way they think it should be.

Saying you didn't like MOS because ... yeah know ... umm ... it sucked? ... is valid. But saying MOS sucked because #notmysuperman is entailment.

Not like your comment isn't valid, but it's not in any way a reply or related to my comment. You're just saying that the show should be good and we have a right to comment when we don't like something.

Yeah. Hot take. I agree.

@ZeldaFan83

Thank you for showing an exact example of what I'm talking about.

The games, which are well loved and basically the only reason you can even get the books translated from Polish, let alone the reason there is money to have a series at all, only exist and were only popular because the people making them took HUGE liberties with the source material, completely ignoring elements of the lore while making dramatic changes to characters and relationships.

It was this freedom to ignore the lore that allowed them to create an experience that was relatable to a Western audience, and if they hadn't done that, we wouldn't have a Netflix show.

But now we turn around and say NO, we, AS FANS, must control what the Netflix show is or isn't. WE should gatekeep the lore. WE should have the final say. It needs to be like what came before. It needs to be how I remember it.

Forgetting that if you existed and had gatekept in 1998, "The Witcher" would have been a fervor dream horror game that only released in Poland and was long forgotten.

You can't have it both ways. The freedom to change is why the series exists at all.

@mee_jing It has already been established that Sirens are monsters in the world of The Witcher.

Anyways, The Witcher takes creative inspiration from far more than just Slavic folklore. The very first book has Geralt make a wish from a Djinn (Arabian mythology), and the title and events of the 4th book, "The Lady of the Lake", clearly mirror classic Arthurian legends.

@HeadPirate Yes, show creators have the right to make the show "their own". But framing rejection of that vision by the viewers as "entitlement" is what I have an issue with. In fact it's the opposite: it's entitled to believe that just because the show is carrying a popular name it deserves praise, love, time and money of the existing fan base. But the corporations try to twist it around like the bad reception of their shows is somehow not their fault but the viewers'. And you have clearly fell for it.

@SmaggTheSmug

How exactly?

The show can't BOTH be like the book (and only have Geralt have one sword on him, for example) while ALSO being like the game (with Geralt carrying two swords). So one group of fans will say this is bad because its' not like the book, and the other will say it's bad because it's not like the game.

Who is the corporates shill, who like perthitic old me (literally a Marxist activist, btw) has "fell for" it? Is it the people who want it to be like the book or the people who want it to be like the game? There is no objective correct answer, nor is there a way to appease to both sides.

When you say that YOU have the right, as someone who likes the books, to be given favorable treatment by the show runner over people who like the games by saying he SHOULD carry one sword and not two, that's literally the definition of entailment. When you say that YOU have the right to see Dandelion's relationship with Geralt mirror the way it is in the book, but people who like the way his relationship is handled in the game do NOT have the right to see it continue like that in the series, that's entitlement. You simply can't argue that isn't the case. It's what the word means in this context.

It has nothing to do with Netflix. It's just saying you are more important then another fan who may have invested the exact same amount of time and money following the series as you. I disagree. Neither group is more important then the other, which is why neither group has the right to expect any media to conform with their opinion of how it should be. Both one and two sword Geralt are valid (although I prefer 2. It's impractical, sure, but it looks cooler!). Both best friends and comic foil versions of dandelion are valid (I actually prefer each in their media. I don't think the show or game would have time to develop or focus on that relationship to capture the nuance of the book, so I think it was smart to drastically change and simplify it for the game and show, although I do no "prefer" that relationship per-say)

But somehow has to decide which ends up in the show. Lauren Schmidt is a Witcher fan as well, and she's spent 10,000s of hours devoted to series, as well as countless more hours refining her craft and convincing others she has the talent and ability to make a show. So she gets to make that decision. She earned the right to make that decision. It's not entitlement. Period. I don't have to agree with her, but she doesn't owe me a thing.

I don't think you read my comment. I used an example of where it's appropriate to say something sucks, and how to differentiate that criticism from entitlement. You should also read comment #21 about how the series is only loved BECAUSE people changed it and didn't respect the lore to begin with.

Frankly, you just seem to want to be angry, and are not happy with the idea that you "popped off" on someone who in no way made any comments about the topic you want to be angry about. If screaming into the void on a message board is how you get off, power to you man ... we've all be there!

But ... maybe just leave me out of it next time and scream about people who actually are trying to make the point you disagree with? Or ... don't. I mean I actually really enjoy this and I'm too sick right now to do anything productive.

@HeadPirate Funny how Marxist activists tend to repeate corporate propaganda the most.
You completely missed my point. My point is that framing fan disappointment in a franchise as a fault of the fans ("entitlement") is being anti-consumer. It's the people handling the franchise who seem to be feeling entitled to the Fandom even if they change stuff around, often rooted in some American political issues. And then they're surprised when, for example, Polish people reject their series.

It's the same with Star Wars, Ghostbusters,
Lord of the Rongs, comic book movies etc. People making new shows using well established names seem to think that they deserve love from the established fan base even though they often act like they're better than those who made the originals or outright insult the "toxic" fans for not acting like they expect.

Personally I never even played the games, I read the books back when I was a teen (and at first I didn't even liked them that much).

But the problem isn't the changes or some parts of the Fandom wanting one thing while other parts wanting another. The problem is the framing of those wishes as "entitlement". Because that's just an excuse to push out mediocre product.

It's not the fans that are toxic. It's the creators.

@HeadPirate I dunno man the Netflix series had 99 problems, but Henry ain't one. All joking aside the nitpicking from the games' fans was rather irritating. Like Yennefer and Geralt having a toxic relationship... Like that's kinda the point of their relationship in the books...

But, after season 3 it's kinda hard to excuse the shows problems outside of those nitpickers. You can honor the books by it adapting the books and just sneak some Easter eggs for game fans (like the game's version of the pendent). But, as far as just the books go... Netflix did a pretty bad job as a whole past season 1 (which was pretty damn good changes and all)..

@ZeldaFan83 One Piece is a good example of how it should be done. Oda stopped Netflix messing around with it too much and said he'd stop it being released if he wasn't happy with it.

@HeadPirate the games are not the reason the books were translated to many other languages.

The Netflix series started well but poor writing really let it down. It's just not very good by the third season which is a shame as they had a really rich lore to pull from. Nothing to do with not being like the game or the books; it's just not great and a huge missed opportunity.

@Jacket_p it's purely a writing issue. The cast was fantastic from top-to-bottom excellent casting. Even if they don't "look like the characters" Anya Chalotra is perfect as Yenn. She is firey, flirty, passionate and just oozes charm!! Henry Cavil... I mean do I need to gush about him? Freya Allen is just a joy as well!!! The production values are fantastic with excellent set design, costuming (sans that Nilfgaardian armor from S1). The writing just really lets down such an overall work of passion by the actors, directors and every level of production.

Such a shame as season 1 showed such promise.

@Wexter Yeah I agree. The look of Yenn was a little jarring at first but agree that the actor captures her very well. Ciri was spot on.

The writing was not after the first season.

The Wheel of Time seems to be quickly following the same path. Another shame as that starting really well too.

@Jacket_p That sucks to hear about Wheel of Time... I was really looking forward to getting into that series... :/