im clearly in the minority it appears on cavill's impersonation of geralt - that's how it comes across to me, watching someone trying to be a character but he just isn't that character. To contrast that in the film world, when i heard Tom Cruise would be playing Lestat in Interview with the Vampire i was mortified (not that i think cruise is a bad actor, just wrong for that part), it turned out i was totally wrong, Cruise was Lestat, he was fantastic, i felt i was watching Lestat on screen and at no point ever did i see Tom Cruise. Cavill in this role is the polar opposite of that, i dont see Geralt, i see cavill playing geralt and every time he's on screen i'm reminded of that fact.
I am surprised, judging by the responses here, that those familiar with the character see cavill as a 'perfect' geralt - geralt is one of my favourite fictional characters of all time and i just dont see it but i can agree to disagree with those of opposite opinion to me. If younger and i could better understand his speech i'd imagine Mads Mikkelsen would've made a great geralt, he naturally has that brooding gravitas that would lend itself so readily to playing geralt, plus a seasoned 'wisdom', another element i dont see in cavill. That said, i much prefer when 'unknowns' get iconic leading roles as they bring no baggage with them (eg as cavill did with Superman, in which i thought he was superb), tho Cruise proved it doesn't have to be the case.
i have a similar problem with Yennefer - tho i think the actress is excellent being the best performing and most interesting character in the show - this Yen again falls short of the original character. In fairness i think this is due in some part to the writing with Yen doing things she just wouldn't (which also goes for geralt btw - using ciri as bait? dont make me laugh) and being scripted in ways she just wouldn't find herself - eg loses her magic? they can fuck off with that. So with Yen i can look past it cos of the great character and acting on view and the writing hamstringing her, so to speak.
i could go on more about the casting - Visemer, another great character that disappointed me - but even that aside, there is that general disappointment with the whole show i can't shake off.
What they got right is the general ambience, feel and look of the witcher universe, it is most definitely the witcher world and i dont think the season/s have been terrible, more of the feeling when Liverpool draw when of course we hope for a win. It could've been so good, but in reality it's ok, you'll take a point away but imagine had we won...
im glad it exists and will continue watching and hopefully see better writing and characters growing into their parts (there was a moment in season 2, maybe a few moments, where i thought ah there's ciri, so there's hope).
Almost forgot, having bad mouthed the character adaptation, i should note Dijkstra is excellent. That's how it should be, i saw the character, knew immediately who that was and when he was on screen i saw just Dijkstra, not an actor's impersonation.
i guess it could look like my misgivings are because of familiarity with the source material and expectation - and that is true - but the story telling is muddled to me and the pacing is clearly an issue as they cut in and out of storylines. In fairness, it's a very complicated universe of subtlety, politically complex and very character heavy to take on. Game of Thrones faced similar challenges but did a much better job, at least in the majority of its seasons (dont get me started on the final season...). So im left frustrated, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, similar fantasy world's but i prefer the witcher world over any of these Tolkein types, maybe i just want too much.
As my expectations weren't met im going to binge season 2 again soon and see if i view it any differently going in without any expectations.
