@Christmas Merlin y i k e s

**k i k e s**

question kinky, are you from nottignham?

To be totally honest the show wasn't that bad except for a few parts.

no

ok

thought you were some fruit loop i was friends with like a decade ago

his name wasw kinky kakashi

i am suspect of all people whop use kinky as a name

isn't Nottingham in like, not-America?

imagine caring about not-America

I am just too lazy to chang my name

cause it started with the first word in my username having the same first letter as the second

but I was too lazy to change it

The witcher show is pretty good imo, like 8/10

Loses points for straying a bit from the books, and triss being boring

If I may; surely it's strength as an adaptation should be left out of it's quality, no?

What you mean?

ok now watch the damn movie

@Sq crcl

If something is made as an adapation such as Netflic's The Witcher, one should rate the show based on it's quality as an independant piece of media rather than rating it's accuracy to the previous material.

Or am I wrong?

Judging an adaptation as an adaptation means judging how close it followed the source material, no? That's kinda separate from whether the show itself was well made in and of itself

ratings tell people what to expect

comments help in a better way

usually the two go hand in hand

Absolutely Xenon. But then should you leave out how good of an adaptation it is on your rating. There is a difference between rating the adaptation and rating the overall quality, no?

@Maeldryn

LOL

is that what your getting served?

for ads i mean?

For example: Triss looks and acts nothing like she does outside of the show but this cannot be leveled against the quality overall as without viewing extra material you wouldn't know or expect anything of Triss.

Don't cover it man, not a shame

I include it because the show makers themselves said how much they wanted to honor the source material, and tbh I wanted the definitive witcher story, not some avant gard interpretation of it