Thread kind of died and was willing to leave it dead if no new information.

Its pretty much all but confirmed that Cavill is leaving because the Netflix writers are screwing up the story.

https://www.cbr.com/henry-cavill-witcher-exit-creative-differences-netflix/

Cavill was actually tempted to leave during Season 2 because he was not happy with the show's direction. The producers probably promised Cavill a big raise to keep him on while also scouting for a replacement for season 4 going forward. You dont recast major roles quickly so casting for Hemsworth was probably in the works during season 3.

Maybe its because Cavill really loves the Witcher franchise and thus is even more unhappy of the fact that its getting screwed but he doesnt seem to be a very difficult actor. Cavill is still on to continue his role in the Enola Holmes franchise despite the team also diverting away from the books, probably because its a chance to play Holms and Cavill probably doesnt care that much about the Enola Holmes franchise. Or maybe the Witcher set is also more toxic compared to other shows like Holmes.

Apparently Witcher is going to at least be 5 seasons with seasons 4 and 5 being developed with Hemsworth as Geralt but damn Im just not going to bother. Probably wont even bother with season 3 to be honest.

I do hope that CDPR takes this to heart and focuses on remastering or at least remaking the Witcher with modern controls only and not add "modern themes" to the Witcher.

General but firm opinion : no literary works should ever have one audiovisual adaptation. They should have either zero or multiple ones. The weight and responsibility of representing a character, story or world should be diluted in the multiplicity of subjective interpretations, leaving the original source in some blur between them.

That's why random takes on Holmes don't matter - each one adds to the multiplicity and serves as one more reminder that none is fully the books'. There's no strict expectation of "being the true one". Nobody cares if Dracula-would-never-have-said-that when a new Dracula-inspired movie comes out. James Bond should not be one series (pretending each time to be the James Bond), it should be a collection of independent book adaptations.

If there was a dozen "Witcher" adaptations, oh how much less drama...

(Other general opinion : Sometimes people disliking the source material and cherry-picking elements from it actually make it better. There's no general rule there. I'm happy Spielberg did Jaws the way he did. I'm happy Starship Troopers and Doctor Strangelove took some distance from their source material. I'm happy Men in Black and the recent OSS117 didn't resemble their sources more.)

The Witcher has two, at least. (The other one is from 2002, but admittedly Polish language only.)

IMO it comes down to one thing...

... if you simply want to use a beloved property in order to exploit it for your own purposes...

... there will always be some level of push-back.

The greater the exploitation...

... the greater the push-back.

At this point it seems pretty clear The Witcher series writers and showrunners had / have little interest in the source material, and Cavill -- as a fan -- is pushing-back by leaving.

It's really quite astounding that a show would actively push out it's star. But then many shows recently have "pushed out" their audiences as well.

Yeah this.

I dont think Cavill or even most of the audience would disagree/dislike the Witcher tv show just because it deviates from the books. Some things would be too difficult or even impossible to shoot accurately and there are always issues with transitioning between different mediums.

However, there is a huge difference between adapting and remaining true to the "spirit" of the IP and just adapting to make something trying to be carried by the name of the IP. Its clear that the tv show is the later which can be seen by how generic the spin-off is and how freely they changed characters and the story. Yes, there can be deviations from the original source material that hold up or are even better than the source material (removing Bombaldi from LotR due to tonal shifts, having Arya serve Tywin directly in GoT) but they dont up-end major plot points because if they do, the adaptation goes to s**t (also see GoT).

I guess the only good thing from this series is CDPR can really take notes regarding their remake of W1. Hope by "modernize," they really just mean more actionized gameplay and graphics (and even then, I know many wont like the actionized gameplay).

My guess is Cavill hinted at the main reason he left... Geralt was given fewer-and-fewer lines.

Why "star" in a TV show for modest money that is working to minimize your character...

... when you can star in a movie paying big money that places you center stage?

Anyway, saw a promotional poster for the show recently... and it had the 3 main female characters and no Geralt whatsoever. Kinda telling IMO.

Just one question. Which of those books and comics you were a fan of?

Of those in particular, none. But then I could give different examples : I love Ian Fleming's novels, but I'm happy the movies created the James Bond archetype which has nothing to do with the books, and have very different flaws and qualities (and I understand Moore's disrespect for the literary Bond). I adore Albert Simonin's novels, but I'm happy they merely served as a vague background for some of the most classic comedies in french cinema. I love Sax Rohmer's novels but damn, I hope they won't ever be adapted (anymore) by a faithful fan.

Sometimes the material is bad, and turned into something good by someone who detests it and rises above it. Sometimes the material is good, but adapted by someone who dislikes it and turns it into another good thing. And also sometimes the material is good and turned into something different by someone who likes it but wants to do his own stuff. Or who likes it for very different reasons, and cherry picks (all adaptations are about cherry picking) aspects that aren't the ones I liked. What I'm saying is that a lot of combinations are possible, they aren't inherently bad or inherently recipes for disaster.

Also I wish there was a tv trope page for adaptations by people who claimed to dislike the source, but I couldn't find any. I'm sure it would be an interesting mix of good and bad outcomes.

Honestly, I too would like to see such a list. Preferrably with explanation why would people, who dislike the source material decided to make adaptation of it.

And just to be clear, I can understand when those in charge of adaptations remove or add stuff because it better fits the medium they are adapting to. I can even understand "lose adaptations" when there are only basic ideas left from source material. But trying to make adaptation (or even an actual sequel) of something that you hate? And even more, market that adaptation to fans of the original? I can't fathom any reason for doing that. Other than intentionally infuriate the fanbase.

It can be about one interesting element in an overall uninteresting work (Jaws), some "oh this is bad but it could be made good", some cynical "oh i hate that but it's a recognized brand so easy money", or some "oh i hate that let's turn it into a self-parody, lolz". But also, I think it's an assigned job more often than we'd expect. "Here's money, a pen/camera, and a contract, make a movie out of that thing there."

As I understand it, a lot of times agents find jobs for their clients and the clients are expected to be thankful for it even if it's not something they like. So many cases we've heard of a talent being negative toward a project but taking the job because their agent insisted what a great opportunity it was for them.

But that's kinda the point here - you DO have elements that you like in the source material. And that's the reason you want to bring them to other media. So, in my opinion, this doesn't fit "hating the source".

Well, in this case backlash is totally deserved.

Spaceballs, Robin Hood and Men in Tights, Space Travesty, Naked Gun, Hot Shots - as you can see you can easily make a parody mocking the original without brand name. Heck, Scary Movie literally used the initial name of the movie and that was brilliant idea!

But that brings us back to the question - why assign a job to someone who hates source material and reject people who like it? Because in case of the Witcher and Star Wars we KNOW that there were people, who liked source material and they had to go (there was the whole "Duel of Fates" conundrum).

The problem is that the serie is like any other fantasy show from Netflix, so the biggest part of the audience are peoples who didn't even know about The Witcher, they just saw it in their recommendation or peoples talk about it so they watched it and liked it because it's similar to their other favorite fantasy show and as long as peoples watch their show they don't care about the source or the fans who expected it to be more faithful to the books.
After what we saw in season 2 we can't expect anything good for the rest of the show, they just took the name "The Witcher" to attract peoples as it's one of the best fantasy books/games these years and rewrite it, they just needed the name.

The subversion of properties that verge on modern religions is on purpose.

Hiring showruners that want to dismantle properties -- while exploiting their names -- is commonplace.

If Hollywood was beholden to the audience, this would have been quickly corrected...

... but...

... ATM Hollywood is being subsidized by "outside parties."

As for agents...

... they get 10% for every signed contract. They don't care what the project is or what it's all about. And unless you have become a known quantity and can jump to another agency (putting your agent's 10% in potential jeopardy), your agent really doesn't care about what you want.

I would like to see that list too but it would be very hard to create and confirm. While Im sure there were directors who worked on projects who hated the work, they dont really come out and say it. This was more frequent at the actor level (Robert Pattinson on hating Twilight) although you would then also get very classy actors who still give their 100% even if they know a movie is bad (Christopher Lee) that there is a trope for it.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TookTheBadFilmSeriously

There are tropes discussing reactions from the creator when the story has been changed in adaptation both positive and negative and I guess for examples where the adaptation deviated from the original source material but is considered good, the best examples would be in the trope creator preferred adaptation.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CreatorPreferredAdaptation

However, in all these cases, the "right to critique" lies with the original creator, not the adaptor for obvious reasons imo. I understand "doing it for the paycheck" but usually when a work is adapted, there usually is some love for it by the higher ups and even the person doing it for a paycheck may just be impartial to the work rather than be a hater of it. After all, the work still produces a big paycheck. Even the director of Twilight was a fan of the books and a fan of keeping the movie "faithful" to the source material (although the proposed adaptation sounds bonkers so bad its good).

https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/why-twilights-director-doesnt-regret-leaving-the-franchise-after-the-first-movie

I just generally find this attitude of actively disliking the source material and trying to make something because you think you are better both incredibly disrespectful to the original creator and just unprofessional. Maybe that is modern Hollywood though, full of directors who think they are God's gift and they have free reign because they think we stupid consumers will just consume whatever they make.