#Feud between selmy and be ioff series#

Without going into laborious detail, he wounds Vesemir and Geralt retaliates by killing him out of irrefutable necessity.

After inviting a group of outsiders to the witcher keep – something that is strictly forbidden – he retreats from a confrontation with Geralt and eventually transforms, losing himself in the process. Eskel, infected by a leshy, is on the verge of turning into a monster, something that is expressed via his hyper-aggressive behaviour and complete disregard for the rules of Kaer Morhen. This is because there’s great power to this sequence.

#Feud between selmy and be ioff series#

He may have died, but his influence on the series will live on for years to come. Eskel is the one Geralt is forced to fight, kill, and bury in a battle he’ll never forget or forgive himself for. Eskel is the one Geralt notices a change in and challenges. Lambert is recognisable for his abrasive sense of humour and Coën becomes memorable for his relative sweetness, but Eskel is the one Geralt embraces at the dining hall door. That’s not to dismiss anyone’s personal preference or suggest they’re carbon copies of each other – what we mean is that for a casual viewer on Netflix with no preexisting knowledge of the universe, they’re just guys Geralt grew up with.Įxcept here’s the kicker: Of all the witchers in Kaer Morhen – aside from Vesemir, obviously – Eskel is the one the show makes a conscious effort to differentiate from the rest. Sure, he’s in the books alongside the likes of Lambert and Coën, but aside from being the witcher who is most like Geralt – he’s roughly the same age, is exceptionally talented but less renowned for it, and has his own Child of Surprise – the witchers in Kaer Morhen are all pretty similar to one another. Let’s be reasonable adults and admit that most people who love Eskel feel that way about him because of how he’s portrayed in the games, which the show is explicitly not based on. But get this: Not every change is bad just because it digresses from the original story.

This is obviously a point of contention: Why kill off a character who doesn’t die? We have history with a strikingly similar scenario in that we’re still annoyed about HBO’s decision to kill off Game of Thrones’ Ser Barristan Selmy at the hands of some amateurish thugs in unreasonable masks. To be blunt, Eskel dies early in the show despite living through the entirety of the books – he even plays a pretty sizable role in CD Projekt Red’s The Witcher 3, the events of which transpire several years after the end of The Lady of the Lake (the last Witcher novel, for anyone unacquainted with Sapkowski’s saga). The first and arguably most discussed change in The Witcher season 2 has to do with Eskel, a witcher who is basically Geralt of Rivia’s brother in every way except blood.

Spoilers for season 2 of Netflix’s The Witcher follow. This is why criticism is extremely valuable when it is constructive, but pointless once it regresses to weird, unnecessary aggression on the internet.Īnyway, let’s talk about changes. If everyone wrote stories to your individual liking, the vast majority of the rest of the world would probably complain it wasn’t written to theirs. One of the most important things about art is that disagreeing with something doesn’t automatically invalidate it. What’s more, we also take issue with a major change we’re still trying to wrap our heads around. What we mean to argue is that all of them are justified.īefore anyone interjects to say ‘that’s just your opinion’ – yes, this is just our opinion. Most went unnoticed, some have been widely lauded, and several are likely being bemoaned right now. The headline of this article should make its purpose pretty obvious: Season 2 of Netflix’s The Witcher made some pretty liberal changes from its source material.