karlesia

It was perfect, though... I think a bit more creativity wouldn't hurt anyone. There was some added scenes and they were good and I enjoyed them, but I was really hoping for Toothless to bite Hiccup's leg off, for example. They could have added some references to the show or something. I loved that Valka was more important (a bit) to the story. The details were great, for example Hiccup had his scar. Most of the actors were great. Mason Thames was a perfect Hiccup, I was not sure after the trailers but he turned out great. So overal great but lacking creativity. Though I love that they were true to the original.

Witcher failed, and it wasn't after season 3, not after season 2, not even at the beginning of season 1. It failed at the very moment the rights to the books were bought by Netflix. This could have been a great show, a compelling story, offering a rollercoaster of emotions to the viewers, but it wasn't.

First season was not decent as many people claim it to be. It was trying to adapt some parts of the books, but making Ciri and Yennefer as important as Geralt, was what didn't allow the plot from the books to appear on screen.

Second season was a total fanfiction, not even that, it was just fiction because fans would write something better.

The third season tried to redeem itself by giving actors more lines from the books, but it didn't help. Why? People were saying: "you know this season is actually really close to the books". Others were replaying that if it's close to the books, but it's still bad or even worse than the previous seasons, then maybe the problem is with the books and they are just bad. But the thing is, despite that characters in the 3rd season were sometimes saying the exact same words as they were in the books it was still not good, because even the little changes that were made, changed the whole meaning of those dialogues. It doesn't matter if you throw lines directly from the books if they are just this, lines without the actual meaning, emotions or needed context.