After, quickly, sorting through a lot of negative, unread, headlines for this new video release, I found myself in a bit of a bind prior to the 'scheduled' watching of the show's start. Would this be the series that ruins any and every Witcher content
forever? Would I still be able to enjoy modern day media with this series being the worst of the worst?

The answer, as would turn out 4 hours later, is yes. Surprising maybe, and probably much to do with very low standards on my side, but yes I did enjoy myself watching this supposed show of horrors. The style, nicely heralded by the appearance of the fan favourite bard. Nice, huge eyed, mad princess. The explanation of the conjunction etc etc.

I think this to be a solid fantasy recommendation to either occasional appreciators and the more seasoned standard-bearer. Maybe, with the enormous growth in individual online media-reporting outlets, there is just so much competition going on that the so called 'safe venues' can't be missed out on and objectivity is an almost obstructing commodity?

It would be nice to hear other commentary on this subject, in the meantime i'm readying myself for the Lotr show. I mean, after enjoying The Wheel of Time, very bold directional choices, i am very curious to see if i can discover what managed to anger the crowds in that show

If the basic blurb of a show interests you, you are far better seeing it with an open mind, and then make your own mind up without whispers from others in your head probably biasing things and your outlook or expectations.

I strongly advocate ignoring reviews and where possible avoiding comments by others. I can never really express these important things strongly enough.

It is all too easy to look at things through the eyes of another, once their thoughts have entered your head. You might not end up feeling the same way, but what you are seeing has been tarnished by them, and you are not viewing with a blank slate.

Of course, in this age, it is a hard ask to do as I suggest.

My general take on this and other controversies is rather simple. The people who will be most interested in a live-action adaptation of a book or a series of books will be the fans of said book or series of books. Those people are also the ones most likely to be disappointed with the result, because adaptations rarely live up to their source materials even when movie directors are well intentioned and don't take that many liberties (which, unfortunately, happens to be a trend nowadays).

If you're an "outsider" rather than a fan of the series, chances are you'll find an adaptation a lot less "offensive" and might actually enjoy it for what it is, given the lack of preconceptions.

I don't know man. I personally enjoyed Ghostbusters 2016 and in certain way it's actually better (more dynamic, more funny) than Ghostbusters 2. But I could never recommend that movie to anyone in good conscience. Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters: Afterlife and Real Ghostbusters - that's movies (and animated show) that people are better watch to familiarize themselves with the franchise.

Same with Blood Origin. Maybe it's an enjoyable show but it's definitely not something that should be a part of Witcher franchise. Sapkowski's books and Game Trilogy is where people should go for authentic Witcher experience. I've heared Dandelion's song for Blood Origin and that was enough to know that this isn't for me.

If you're not trying to make some thing the fan of the original content would enjoy, then why are you making an adaption? The point of slapping "the Witcher" on a media title is to attract fans of "the Witcher" and to trade on the popularity of that name. If you're just making a completely independent creation, why not just make that instead of doing a bait and switch to tick people off?

If the best you can say about a series that purports to adapt a particular franchise is "You're better off not being a fan of the original, or expecting it to be anything like the original" then I think I'd give it a miss. There are a ton of independent creators trying to create original material that are starving for oxygen; I'd rather give them my attention than give it to someone who is being dishonest about hiding an original creation behind the name of another franchise.

Totally, and not all fans are so narrow minded.

I for instance never expect a movie or TV series to live up to the book, and view it as entertainment set in a familiar setting. The visual medium is never or rarely a good addition to the original subject matter, which should be seen as separate and on the basis of its own merit.

It's rarely as simple as that.
It's more than often about a good idea, proved by the number of fans, and bringing it to the screen means compromises, especially when money is a consideration, which it always is ... and there are other factors to consider in these modern times, righty or wrongly.

You might think the screen adaption is for fans, but really they just guarantee an audience. Producers hope for more than that, knowing that many who cannot be bothered to read the book or play the game etc, are still interested enough to take the easy option of just watching it on screen instead.

This was proved by how many for instance watched the Lord Of The Rings movies, far more than ever read the book(s). And of course, many then went on to read the books. Growing up I knew several folk who struggled to read the book(s), many giving up. The movies meant they finally got to see and know the full story, and perhaps for some that meant they went back and persevered until they completed reading it, which then becomes its own reward.

Similar thing with Game Of Thrones. I fully agree there are many great stories out there, not being taken a chance on, but I disagree that a known franchise isn't worth making some effort over. What peeves me really, is the continual remakes, many unnecessary, or the virtually pointless sequels and or prequels. Once again, it is about making a virtually guaranteed killing at the box office. Too many in the movie industry are all about money and not taking any kind of risk.

Funnily enough, while zipping through the last episode of their cyberpunk show on Netflix, netrunners or something, the realization hit home. Both are just basic boy meets girls (both in despair, lost) stories wrapped in the lore of the theme. Cyberpunk and the Witcher. You have your crew, blood origin also includes songs of hope, there are some monsters.... Both worlds seem to incorporate monsters, be it human or otherwise. So there you have it. Still, i wouldn't want to have missed either one. Especially the graphical treat in blood origin is quite out there. From these amazing monoliths brought alive by an almost tech like magic to the in comparison small part of the make-up of some of the characters introduced..... Now i think about it, both shows use a small mad female as the embodiment of barbarism. yea, like this dude. I mean, i've been a huge fan of the wheel of time series ever since mom brought home that test read of the first book (she worked for a distributor of books) Since then read the series a couple of times over. I only have some trouble with the character change of the writers switch for the last parts. But, somehow this does not affected my appreciation the show took when being adapted for telly.

i mean, its like, book readers use their own fantasy right? of course stuff behaves differently while remaining essentially the same. (ok it is ofc a wait to see what Marts gonna do but even then, if it will end with him returning to good again) the first 3 lotr movies where ofc of a different stature but even then, those where movies released in a time that some other social influences played a much smaller part then they do these days right??

I loved the Wheel Of Time books, every single one of them, and many fans don't. And I loved the TV Series, watching it twice with different members of my household, and a month or so ago, I bought the Blu-rays.

To be perfectly honest though, I am not your typical movie or TV Series fan.

Take the Lord Of The Rings. I loved the movies, but made sure I was satisfied with how many times I had read the book(s) before watching the movies, with the idea I may never read them again, because I did not want the movie interpretations over-riding my own memories etc when reading. Every now and then I think about watching the movies again, the extended versions, which I have never seen on a large widescreen TV. But then I think to myself, that enough time has gone by, that I could probably re-read the book again and not be much impacted by visuals and interpretations from the movies.

A similar thing with Game Of Thrones. I've still only watched the first episode of the first series, because the author hasn't written the final books, and I don't want any visuals or interpretations from the show being in my mind when reading. The risk there now, is the author may never finish the books, and so at some point I may watch the series, which I have collected, anyway. I only watched the first episode, to get a feel of how well the show was done. That was a few years ago now, so I don't really remember anything about that first episode, other than the dwarf actor who is not an issue for me, as I found him very suitable ... though even he is very hazy right now in my memory.

So I prefer separation and differences between books and video adaptions, the more the better ... to a point anyway.

It is not always the case for me though. Earlier in the year I started reading the Jack Reacher novels, and when I got to about book 5 in the now 28 book series, I watched the new Reacher series on Amazon Prime, and it was very close to the first book, and I found most elements, not all, very well done. I have the Tom Cruise movies of Jack Reacher, but not yet watched them and he was very controversial as being Jack Reacher, though I believe he did a fair job considering. I certainly prefer the new actor for Jack Reacher, he feels and looks totally right.

Yea, i should wave goodbye to all of those nonsense accounts, clean up my feed so to speak and ignore those who are only interested in presenting clickbait.
Of course, anyone can feel anyhow they like about anything they come across, but the seemingly huge consensus about blood origin managed to surprise me a lot. Usually i'm not that far off the so-called public opinion, a bit milder maybe than its heralds, but usually not so far that i appreciate titles with such a bad rating in general.

The new year has me looking forward to a read of the Witcher novels, maybe that will clear up some of the 'mystery' concerning this bad score.TBF though, me thinks the whole Geralt debacle is also at play with the verdict placed on blood origin. And of course those in their twenties and younger are usually pretty die-hard when it comes too defending their lifeblood ;p.

I just read about a coming character change in the wheel of time series. Apparently, Mat is taken over by another character for the 2d season. Probably succumbed to Morgoths......uh wait no, i mean Shadar Logoths darkness.
An educated guess: uproar will be, probably not as large as with the Witcher announcement of a new lead actor.

Same here.
The two only gripes I had (or still have) with that movie, are:

1) that it's basically a remake of the original Ghostbusters, and
2) that Chris Hemworth's role (Kevin) was such a moron.

To (1) why couldn't they simply make a sequel to the original movies, with the ladies being the daughter (McKinnon) and nieces (Wiig, McCarthy, Jones) of the original Ghostbusters?

To (2) why a moron? I mean, Janine was no moron.
I could understand it, if Hemsworth would have felt the need to dip his toes into the comedic, and had basically asked Feig to let him play his character the way he did. We know from other actors, that they sometimes like to do that...but he had the chance to do that already in earlier movies, so it makes zero sense.

As to "The Witcher - Blood Origin": I can't say anything about that, since I don't have a Netflix subscription.
I also never watched the other "The Witcher" series, and never read the books. Never interested me, really.
I was fine with the glimpse that the games offered me into "the Witcher" universe.

Well, I'm a few minutes into the series, and I must say I like it. I hated the Wheel of Time and I went into that blind. Less than halfway through an episode I had to stop and gather my thoughts because I'm a huge fan of that book series, but the adaptation was off the rails bad and borderline unrecognizable as the same story I read.

The story of this show feels a little contrived, but it's hard to find a story that's not these days. I don't hate it, that's for sure, but maybe because I'm not as big a fan of the Witcher as I am tWoT.

A very good question, that Hollywood has, sadly, a single answer for: money :P. *insert Mr. Krabs "I like money" meme* There are plenty of people who hear about "this thing that's all the rage now" and want to get into it, but find reading a bit too much in these modern times. Those people will go straight for any live-action adaptation out there and binge on it. Agreed, but unfortunately fans don't run movie studios, otherwise we'd be living in a very different world now, where adaptations could actually compete with the original material. Instead we get a Peter Jackson every ten years and the rest have other agendas. Don't interpret my take on this as a sign I'm happy with what's going on, because I'm not... fortunately for me I am an avid reader, so couldn't care less if an adaptation turns out to be bad.

It's like i said, The Witcher and Blood origin are probably a good show for peoples who just want to watch a fantasy show, but for the fans it's a really bad adaptation or spin off