People compare The Witcher to Game of Thrones. When HBO decided to make Game of Thrones it was a brave move. Both because the genre, the portrayal (nudity, etc) was new, and partly because of the unfinished novels. They had a vision and believed in it, and invested a lot, took a lot of risks. And sadly the had to turn an unfinished story into a series. And when the author can't finish a story, who can? Without that bravery it would be unlikely to see The Witcher.

And at that time it was harder to recruit talent for a show. If we would adjust their investment for inflation, it would show that GoT was more expensive and more ambitious project. It finished and when people want something similar we have The Witcher. All the financial power of Netflix wasn't enough to launch it directly against GoT, they have chosen an easier moment.

Yes, Netflix uses good cameras, good software, can hire good actors and do an okay job at turning a story into a TV show, some can blame them for some mechanically applied political agenda, but thats it. If that doesn't scare you away from their service you can watch their shows. One is just as good as the other, if you see it that way. One is just as bad as other, would come the reply. You can give awards for technical stuff, for actors, for music and pretty much anything. But you won't see artistic vision, ambition. Netflix doesn't believe in any of the shows enough to take half as much risk as HBO.

Most of us got what we have expected. With the usual Netflix tone. We can speak about how casting for Triss was bad, but not bad enough to run the show. We can speak about nice fighting scenes, yet we haven't seen large battles yet. They have spent money where it can be better, and avoided harder and riskier stuff, so it wasn't a disappointment.

If you know the story you got mostly what you would expect. No risks, no ambition and no disappointment, but excellent technical quality, the definition of a Netflix show. The streaming service where fighting the system is copying mainstream politicial propaganda. So not bad at all. Right?

But in all honesty fans of the brand probably had a chance to read books, play video games and some true fans maybe played the tabletop RPG too. With the show we had an Okay representation of what we already known, without any added value. Shows can decide to show more about the lands, the continents, the minor characters, can flesh out things. Why?

Because if you would try to describe everything you can see in one secound of a show, you could still fill pages about the minor detials. Costumes, architecture, makeup, For this added value we would need ambitition from the makers. They should aim high and take risks, because some might dislike their interpretation even if some would love it.

When we watch an adaptation, be it Game of Thrones, The Witcher, or just Agatha Chrisitie's Poirot, we often watch it for the added value. HBO spent a lot of effort on creating this added value. Even the classic Poirot series has plenty of it. So both premium production and cheap one can have this. The Witcher series has very little to offer in this deparment. No risks, no disappointment right? But no added value either.

And as it gives very little to the viewer, I would prefer a cheaper, technically imperfect show, with a less popular (and interesting) IP, that still gives me plenty of things for the time and money invested. And even the best actors (like Henry Cavill) and their excellent acting is limited by lack of ambition from Netflix here.