The Witcher doesn't need spin-offs (for now…)

The Witcher doesn't need spin-offs (for now…)

A far from simple period for Geralt of Rivia, the most loved monster hunter in the entertainment world. After having depopulated in the videogame sector, bringing the literary saga of Andrzej Sapkowski to the fore, the witcher has conquered the Netflix audience, with a series that in two seasons has been able to carve out a certain fame for itself, not without criticism and detractors. A condition that has certainly not frightened the streaming service of Reed Hastings, which has given birth to a series of spin-offs of The Witcher , giving fans of the witcher first The Witcher: Night of the Wolf and recently The Witcher: Blood Origin . If the first title has enjoyed some success, the miniseries that took us to the distant past of the world of The Witcher seems to have failed to excite the public, to the point that they wonder if we will see more spin-offs of The Witcher .

Buy Fire TV Stick 4k with Alexa remote control to watch Netflix directly on your TV In hindsight, even the main series is not having an easy time. Much of the success of this production was linked to the presence of a star actor like Henry Cavill, who, thanks to his renowned nerd soul, was quick to attract attention to the character. Following recent news of his departure from the series, where he will be replaced by Liam Hemsworth, fans' concerns were quickly felt. While recasting is always problematic (as the MCU well knows, which had to evaluate it for both Black Panther and Thaddeus Ross), the preservation of an emotional bond between viewers and story is the pact that should never be broken. In this respect, before going into the production of further spin-offs, The Witcher should focus on the main story and build on what has recently happened with Blood Origin.

After Blood Origin, are more The Witcher spin-offs needed?

The Blood Origin error How to expand the universe of The Witcher The spin-off danger for The Witcher

The Blood Origin error

Set 1200 years before the adventures of Geralt, Blood Origin was supposed, through a handful of episodes, to tell the birth of the world of The Witcher by showing the phantom Convergence of the Spheres, i.e. the event that conducted on a single world humans, monsters and elves, and the birth of the Old Blood to which Ciri is bound.

An occasion in which the ritual that led to the alchemical creation of the first witcher is also shown, going to compose a perhaps too pretentious cosmogony. A result that did not convince the fans of the series, who did not appreciate these willingness to show a prequel so distant from the time horizon of the main series, but which was motivated, according to showrunner Declan De Barra, as essential to give greater depth to the future third season:

We were trying to understand a strong point to move forward, but we didn't know how to find answer without knowing what happened before the Conjunction of the Spheres, we needed to know what the elves wanted. So, I made this big table to understand what these reasons were, and this then became the basis of the series

Yet, the miniseries was different from Night of the Wolf , an animated prequel closest to the myth of Geralt, where Vesemir's past was shown and the first meeting between the two characters was witnessed. The tool was different, given that it appealed to an animation in line with other proposals of the period ( Castlevania , The Legend of Vox Machina ), but above all the approach to the continuity of the saga of The Witcher was different, remaining closer to Geralt's vision . A totally absent aspect in The Witcher: Blood Origin, which precisely because of this identity of genesis of the entire narrative context of the saga seems to have confused the spectators. Partially the fault of a narration that has perhaps focused too much on a handful of characters, leaving the world in which they move to be not a silent character who accompanies them, but only a narrative enrichment, devoid of a truly fundamental caliber for the story of Geralt.

Looking back on Sapkowski's work it must be recognized that the books, especially in the initial stages, were set up as a series of stories loosely united by a horizontal plot, presenting themselves more as a series of self-contained adventures that were only later brought together into a more cohesive narrative.

Expanding the Witcher universe

In this first phase, the world in which Geralt moved was not particularly defined, only with the progressive success of the series Sapkowski dedicated herself to giving more completeness to her universe, an aspect that was also emphasized by Declan De Barra, the showrunner of The Witcher: Blood Origin , during a recent interview with :

Sapkowski is the king of closed stories, the more we read his books, the wider the tapestry of this world. This is the advantage of this type of story, they can be solitary pieces, but they make up another part of this world, expanding it further. This is the fun part.

If on the one hand this hinted breadth of the setting can be a promising feature to go beyond the simple adventures of Geralt, on the other we must be aware of how this expansion should be reasoned.

The demonstration is precisely the reaction of the fans of the saga to Blood Origin , which has failed to show a sensitive link to the main series, limiting itself to a series of fleeting references to the main narrative corpus of The Witcher . Spectators associate The Witcher with Geralt, Ciri and Jennefer, their absence cannot be compensated by the mere presence of Jesker as deus ex machina to motivate this tale of the past, especially if the tone of the miniseries deviates too markedly from the points retainers that endeared The Witcher to its fans. Error avoided by Night of the Wolf , which being set a few years before the adventures of Geralt and showing the character of a beloved of the series, Vesemir, intelligently chose to tell a formative moment of Geralt (his meeting with his master) going to cement an aspect of his personality intelligently presented in the second season of the series. A sensible spin-off therefore, limited in its nature and in any case easily attributable to the continuity of the series. Two traits that Blood Origin lacked, which wanted to run the risk of strongly departing from the main plot of The Witcher.

A risk that was exacerbated when Geralt's face announced his abandonment. Losing a secondary character can be manageable, but if the lead actor, the visual heart of the series, leaves, a significant problem arises: will the fans be able to see the 'new' Geralt in the new actor? In a situation where fans are wondering how the main series can continue without its main interpreter, a story appears that even temporarily distances us from Geralt.

The spin-off danger for The Witcher

Before venturing into other risky explorations of the possibilities offered by the world of The Witcher , it would be preferable to cement the narrative solidity of the main series . Let's not forget that if the first series was generally well received, net of some defects especially, the second chapter of the saga collided with a certain coldness of the fans, especially the connoisseurs of the literary saga who did not like some changes too much radicals to Geralt's narrative tradition. If Eskel's death and Yennefer's loss of powers can be interesting turning points in terms of the evolution of the story, now the third season has the difficult task of giving fans security again, first of all by convincing them that the new actor will be up to it. of the beloved Cavill.

Reason why, before launching into other reckless spin-offs, it would be preferable that attention focused on giving The Witcher more solidity on the main series again, trying to give viewers again a series that knows how to treasure past mistakes to maintain a solid and compelling narrative level. And after restoring the witcher's luster, there will always be time to bring other spin-off chapters of The Witcher to life.

Powered by Blogger.