I'd like to start by disclosing that I'm a major, long-time Witcher fan (so this is going to be a long rant). I was pretty excited when in 2017 word got out that Netflix will be making a show based on the books. This excitement fizzled out when I saw the first trailer. I briefly got my hopes back up after the first couple of episodes of the actual series, but as it went on, I was cringing ever harder as I watched characters and stories I know and love being twisted almost beyond recognition.

But playing around with the source material was to be expected and does not, of itself, make a series or a movie a bad one. If done right, a film can stand on its own - the "Lord of the rings" trilogy and "Cloud Atlas" come to mind. These films did not follow the respective books word for word, but stayed true to the spirit that makes them great.

So is "The Witcher" a quality show when viewed independently of the source material?

Well, this first season's defining trait is its desire to be liked. The showrunners seem to be trying to emulate the success of the obvious comparison, the title which opened the door for high-budget series - "Game of thrones". When it came out, GoT's grand-scale grim fantasy narrative was something new and bold. Despite this, or perhaps because of this, the first three seasons took the time to develop characters and set up conflicts, mostly sticking to the books. However, it could be argued that GoT became really popular after season four, once it started deviating from the source material in favour of entertaining its audience (and making progressively less sense in the process).

It's almost like "The Witcher" series' creators, having reached the same conclusion, decided to skip story and character building and to instead come out swinging, straight to the big stuff. Or perhaps it is due to the nature of Netflix as a streaming service - you've got to hook the viewer as quickly as possible, or they'd just switch to the next series available at their fingertips. The showrunners' desire to show us everything right away is evident in the first episode - it opens with a big, well-animated monster ("we've got the CGI") and continues with a massive, though unremarkable battle scene ("we've got the money to show you stuff"; GoT only featured its first battle in season four, if I'm not mistaken), a nicely choreographed sword fight ("we've got the action"), some tragic deaths ("we've got the drama") and a warning about the fate of the world ("we've got the epic narrative").

Showing off with visuals is OK, but the attempt to introduce the overarching epic conflict from the get-go creates script and pacing problems for pretty much the entire season. It is hard to understand what is going on when there is no exposition whatsoever (who are these people battling?) or to care for dramatically filmed deaths when the characters have been on screen for only a couple of minutes. As the show continues, the script embarks on explaining what the hell is going on, while also trying to stay true to the episodic nature of the short stories.

However, since Geralt's separate adventures actually happen before the main narrative starts - and we are shown this narrative already underway in E1, we are treated to some badly done and confusing time jumps. Cirilla is told to run and find Geralt, but he doesn't seem to know she even exists - oh, wait, he's actually doing some other, unrelated stuff years before she was born. Time jumps can be an excellent plot or exposition device ("Breaking bad" utilises them to great effect, and they are also found in "The Witcher" novels), but not here. Simply putting some dates once at the start of sequences would have helped - though it would have been but a prop for the bad writing.

Moreover, the rushed script makes the entire relationship between Cirilla and Geralt ring hollow. It is portrayed as the driving force behind the plot, yet there is in fact no relationship at all - the show has them share practically no screen time, there is no explanation why Geralt cares so much about her, nor of her motivation to look for someone she's never seen - other than her grandmother telling her so (how would Ciri know even if she found him, anyway?). This is mostly the result of skipping a very important story from the second book about how the witcher and the girl meet.

A number of other things don't make sense, either. One example would be the inconsistent way sorcery works. We are told doing magic has a cost in life force (not how it is in the books) - illustrated by a flower dying when a stone is levitated. However, this rule seems to apply only for some people and only when it'd look cool. In one scene, a mage is forced to commit suicide in order to create a fireball. Later the same episode, another mage incinerates half a battlefield without any apparent cost.

This brings me to another point - the way the Nilfgaardian empire is portrayed. In the books and games, the Nilfgaard vs. the North clash is just a political conflict serving as backdrop for the fates of Geralt and Cirilla. There is no good or bad, both sides are painted in gray - with ordinary people suffering in the middle. I guess the producers figured this is too complex for the average viewer, so they cast Nilfgaard as evil religious fanatics sacrificing humans, featuring an Arch-baddie™; and they are opposed by the North, "protecting their way of life".

On to the more technical side of things - the acting is mostly OK. People seem to swear by Cavill's performance, but he is not how I imagined Geralt. Objectively, though, I suppose he does a fine enough job; he brings physicality to the role and seems to be passionate about it off-screen. I dislike what the showrunners have done to the character of Yennefer, but Anya Chalotra plays the part she's been given with intensity. Freya Allan is forgettable as Cirilla, and so is Anna Shaffer as Triss (a minor character in the books and the show, but a major one in the games, so a lot of people have been disappointed by the performance). In a strange move, the show has cast overly young actresses for some sorceresses (Anya Chalotra is 23, but is given the task of conveying the air of confidence and authority of a woman that is 100+ years old; doesn't quite make it), while 18 years old Freya Allan is picked to portray a girl that is just entering her teens. The only actor who I can definitely say nailed his role is Joey Batey as the funny sidekick Jaskier.

The music is also mostly alright. "Toss a coin to your witcher" seems to have conquered the charts, though I think it doesn't fit the setting's atmosphere (not that the show gets that, either). I prefer "The last rose of Cintra" and "The call of the White Wolf", but to each his own.

I am not sure how the show manages to occasionally give off B-movie vibes with a budget of $80 mln, but it does. I blame it on the bad directing and the poor artistic design. I don't have such a big problem with the Nilfgaardian armor as everybody seems to have, but was, for example, disappointed by the dryads looking like extras from "Xena - Warrior princess".

To wrap it up, "The Witcher" is a show that has its high points, but is dragged down to being mediocre by its anxiety to please. It is "inspired by" and not "based on" the books, like the credits would have you believe - it is more "The hobbit" than "The Lord of the rings", in more ways than one. And whatever its redeeming qualities, I personally can't forgive Netflix for ruining the adaptation of my favourite fantasy story. But the show has actually gone on to become fairly popular, a second season has been confirmed. Thus, Netflix has fulfilled what seems to have been their objective - retain subscribers in the face of stiffening competition. People who liked the latter seasons of GoT and are now looking for another fantasy fix will likely enjoy this series, too. But considering the source material, the show could have been so much more, had it had the guts to not just take the shortcut to Season 2. Perhaps the next installment will deliver on this potential - though I personally don't have my hopes up.