Speaker 1: Hello. My name is Rosy Night and I'm a Buzafar.
Speaker 2: That's him.
Speaker 3: I'm so happy you're here.
Speaker 2: Boo. Welcome back to X ray Vision, the podcast where
Speaker 2: we dive deep into your favorite shows, movies, comics, at
Speaker 2: pop culture. We are here at iHeart Podcast, where we'll
Speaker 2: be bringing you three episodes a week and news on Saturdays.
Speaker 1: And in today's episode, Rosie, you and I are going
Speaker 1: to be using the Witcher season four and the Netflix
Speaker 1: adaptation at large sort of as a launch pad for
Speaker 1: a larger discussion about adaptations, because you and I have
Speaker 1: been chatting about good adaptations, bad adaptations. What makes them good,
Speaker 1: what makes them bad? How do you do them right?
Speaker 1: Quote unquote how do you do them wrong? And so
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into that today through the lens of
Speaker 1: the Witcher.
Speaker 3: Okay, ah boo. What is your preference?
Speaker 2: Do you want an adaptation to be a strictly adherent
Speaker 2: to the source material?
Speaker 3: Do you like when an adaptation puts soon spin on it?
Speaker 2: I do feel personally that that is a subjective question
Speaker 2: that's mostly on like a case by case basis.
Speaker 3: But what are your thoughts on it?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean, subjectively speaking, I lean toward the purest
Speaker 1: view on this, like, especially when it comes to stories
Speaker 1: that I'm already deeply attached to and that I'm quite
Speaker 1: passionate about. If I'm watching an adaptation, I want it
Speaker 1: to follow the story that I already know and love.
Speaker 1: I want it to adhere as closely as it can
Speaker 1: to the source material. And in fact, that is the
Speaker 1: reason I've been turned off for many adaptations, is when
Speaker 1: it begins to drift too far from the original characters
Speaker 1: or the original plots and themes that resonated with me originally. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if that begins to change in the adaptation, I begin
Speaker 1: to check out, and ultimately like, there's a high chance
Speaker 1: that I'm gonna not like the adaptation if it begins
Speaker 1: to be two different from the story that I already know.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm very interested to ask you then about Let's
Speaker 2: talk about uh Denny's June, because I do. I love June,
Speaker 2: and I think, like you know, I like many I'm
Speaker 2: not like you. I've not read all the books. I
Speaker 2: have not like struggled through the density of the of
Speaker 2: the text, though I do. I do love what I've read,
Speaker 2: and I've enjoyed kind of dipping into them throughout my life.
Speaker 3: And I love those adaptations.
Speaker 2: But I do understand, even from my brief knowledge, like,
Speaker 2: there are some changes that are quite like a big deal.
Speaker 2: But at the same time, sure, yeah, a lot of
Speaker 2: it sticks incredibly textually to the books.
Speaker 1: Right, Yes, I think the dannie Ville Love films are
Speaker 1: actually an example of handling an adaptation perfectly. Are there changes?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 1: Are changes inevitable? Yes, you're changing, You're changing to an
Speaker 1: entirely different medium of storytelling, and you're retelling the story
Speaker 1: decades after it was originally published. There inevitably have to
Speaker 1: be changes. And of course it's being told through the
Speaker 1: lens of a different artist, right Like that that worldview,
Speaker 1: their perspective is going to bleed into the adaptation of matter.
Speaker 2: And also eight years after it is written or something
Speaker 2: you know as well, that's the other thing. It's like
Speaker 2: decades decades later, so things have changed, Yes, But yeah,
Speaker 2: what is it about the balance? How did Denny capture
Speaker 2: and balance those two things?
Speaker 3: Was it about? Like?
Speaker 2: The tone feels so much like Dune. The themes are
Speaker 2: still there, but those little changes work. Like what was
Speaker 2: it about it for you that made it so special?
Speaker 1: I think tone and theme are what Denny nailed. When
Speaker 1: it comes to Dune, It's clear that Dannyville Love deeply, deeply,
Speaker 1: deeply understands the Dune universe and doesn't just understand it like, oh,
Speaker 1: I picked up this book and I read it once
Speaker 1: and I liked it a lot. I'm going to make
Speaker 1: a movie. He clearly has read the entire series, has
Speaker 1: read much of the extracurricular stuff that's out there, the
Speaker 1: expanded lower stuff, and so that to me shows that
Speaker 1: there was respect and knowledge here from danny Ville Love.
Speaker 1: I think he also captured tone, and the film itself
Speaker 1: is about the major themes that Frank Herbert was exploring
Speaker 1: in the books, about fanaticism and religion and despotic leaders
Speaker 1: and politics and you know, fate and predestination, like all
Speaker 1: of these things are intact in the films.
Speaker 2: I think that's a really good point because also it
Speaker 2: reminds me of another adaptation that actually did change the
Speaker 2: source material like a lot, which was Watchmen. It basically
Speaker 2: acted as like a sequel HBO's Watchman. But I think
Speaker 2: in the thing that it understood was it understood the
Speaker 2: political themes. It understood the way that it was supposed
Speaker 2: to be satirizing, superho culture, fascistic policing, the way those
Speaker 2: two things can come together.
Speaker 3: So that team was able to create something new.
Speaker 2: With the characters that felt entirely thematically resonant and felt
Speaker 2: modern and updated. And I think that there is a
Speaker 2: possibility of doing that. But the kind of deft hand
Speaker 2: that you need.
Speaker 3: Is so so.
Speaker 2: Just like gentle and intricate, and like you need to
Speaker 2: be able to weave those together because also sometimes it
Speaker 2: is a case of like Jurassic Park, that was something
Speaker 2: we talked about, right, amazing adaptation. Arguably a lot of
Speaker 2: people would say better than the book. The first book
Speaker 2: is a lot more like the second book that there's
Speaker 2: a movie. Ironically, there is a lot more density, there's
Speaker 2: a lot more of what you would expect from a
Speaker 2: Christim book.
Speaker 3: And I love him. I love that book.
Speaker 2: But with Jurassic Park, I think it was kind of
Speaker 2: ironically an incredible streamlining of a great idea and now
Speaker 2: the themes are there. It's not about science gone wrong, it's
Speaker 2: about science gone right. But it's about greed, but it's
Speaker 2: about should you. It's about all the same things. But
Speaker 2: what they managed to do in Jurassic Park was streamline
Speaker 2: it into like a blockbuster monster movie, and that's also
Speaker 2: very interesting, like you can even change genre a little
Speaker 2: bit if you end up in a space because the
Speaker 2: original Jurassic Park is a sci fi thriller, as most
Speaker 2: of Crichton's books are, but there are moments I think
Speaker 2: a lot about the Sam Jackson wrapped arm on his
Speaker 2: shoulder that feel fully like horror, you know, And I
Speaker 2: think that's because they understood what needed to be done
Speaker 2: from a dinosaur movie, something we hadn't had a popular
Speaker 2: one off since like the fifties, you know, obviously other
Speaker 2: than like kind of sitcommy dinosaur X stuff, but not
Speaker 2: like a thrill ride. So I think those are really interesting.
Speaker 2: I also think it's kind of funny how time changes
Speaker 2: things because Lord of the Rings we all loved it, right,
Speaker 2: but as kids there were definitely, like when I was young,
Speaker 2: there was a lot of nitpicking about like, oh, there's
Speaker 2: not enough singing, why don't they have the singing, why
Speaker 2: don't they have the long food sessions, why don't they
Speaker 2: get into the stuff that is in the appendices? And
Speaker 2: then ironically, you know, when Amazon decided, okay, well we'll
Speaker 2: just do that, that didn't work, you know, for for
Speaker 2: most people. I am a Rings of Power fan. I've
Speaker 2: talked about it. I like the show, I really enjoy it.
Speaker 2: Why not make a big swing, Why not tell me
Speaker 2: more about these characters? Sure, but it's funny what you
Speaker 2: can sometimes I think adhering too much to those little
Speaker 2: details that fans love, the songs, the hobbits, hairy feet,
Speaker 2: these things that you know, super fans are complaining about.
Speaker 2: Sometimes if you focus too much on that, you actually
Speaker 2: lose what is at the core of it, which is
Speaker 2: kind of this adventure story or whatever.
Speaker 3: Appeals to people.
Speaker 2: So it's really interesting how these things change, because obviously
Speaker 2: now a lot of the Rings is seen as like
Speaker 2: the ultimate, almost perfect adaptation, you know, even though there
Speaker 2: are definitely big changes.
Speaker 3: Well, I know that. Let's talk about some some less good.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about the one that really inspired this conversation,
Speaker 2: which was.
Speaker 1: Sure, yeah, the Witcher, the Witch.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about it.
Speaker 2: So tell me more about your fandom of the Witcher
Speaker 2: and how you came to the Witcher before the show,
Speaker 2: because you do have like a distinct knowledge of the
Speaker 2: law and the novels and the games and stuff.
Speaker 1: Right, Yes, absolutely, I love the games I was actually
Speaker 1: introduced I'm sure, like many people to the Witcher through
Speaker 1: the video games, and actually not the Witcher three. I
Speaker 1: played the Witcher one was just not a great video.
Speaker 1: Actually it's pretty outdated and bad. Which Are two is great?
Speaker 1: Witch Are three is maybe one of the most legendary
Speaker 1: video games of all time. That's how people are usually
Speaker 1: introduced to the Witcher. They realize, wait, these are based
Speaker 1: off of books. Let me read the books, and that's
Speaker 1: when you realize the games are actually completely disconnected from
Speaker 1: the books. It just takes the characters in the setting.
Speaker 1: The games are not canon in any way, to be clear,
Speaker 1: but the books themselves are great, and the games adapt
Speaker 1: the books by doing hitting all of the things that
Speaker 1: you and I have been talking about, perfectly, nailing the characters,
Speaker 1: the tone, the themes, many of the ideas, setting it
Speaker 1: in a world that feels so in line with the original.
Speaker 1: And that's one big reason the games are so popular
Speaker 1: as well, because of the great setting and great characters.
Speaker 1: The books are also great. I'm a big fan of
Speaker 1: the games, I'm a big fan of the books. I
Speaker 1: ran a very popular Witcher podcast for many years that's
Speaker 1: now sort of been on hiatus because I'm past that
Speaker 1: Witcher phase in my life. And you know, I thought,
Speaker 1: for the first season the Witcher TV show, while not perfect,
Speaker 1: I had my qualms with it. I had my nitmix.
Speaker 1: While not perfect, I think it was a good start,
Speaker 1: and I was hopeful that we would continue to see
Speaker 1: the show grow into itself, kind of find its voice,
Speaker 1: really establish that its strengths as an adaptation of the material,
Speaker 1: because it was doing a pretty good job in season one.
Speaker 1: I think by the time we got into season two,
Speaker 1: we started to diverge greatly from the source material. Season
Speaker 1: one certainly had its divergences, but that could be explained
Speaker 1: away because we're a TV show.
Speaker 3: Now change some things, different format, different medium, you need
Speaker 3: to change it.
Speaker 1: Like sure, right, But I think seasons two, certainly, by three,
Speaker 1: and now that we're into four that just came out
Speaker 1: this year, while we are still borrowing many things like
Speaker 1: overarching plotlines and characters from the books, the way they
Speaker 1: are interpreted and portrayed and the way the story is
Speaker 1: told has diverged dramatically from the source material in ways
Speaker 1: that to me no longer honor the themes and ideas
Speaker 1: of the original stories. And so the show does not
Speaker 1: resonate with me in the same way that the books did,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't expand at the universe and let me
Speaker 1: live in it like the games did. And so unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I'm sort of a a former Netflix which your show fans, you.
Speaker 3: Know what, you gave it a try.
Speaker 2: You gave it a try, and I think that that's
Speaker 2: the thing. And I'm really excited to come back after
Speaker 2: the break because i have a different Netflix show where
Speaker 2: the changes they made really worked for me, and it
Speaker 2: got canceled.
Speaker 3: So I'm excited to talk about that after the bak
Speaker 3: and we're back. Aboo, welcome back.
Speaker 2: Thanks to those adverts that you definitely listen to, guys,
Speaker 2: me and a boo back, We're here, and yeah, Mark
Speaker 2: for me, I totally feel you on the Witch. I've
Speaker 2: played some of the games, not like finished. I think
Speaker 2: they're great. I actually read the first book. I thought
Speaker 2: it was really enjoyable. I watched a Netflix show. It
Speaker 2: just never really caught me in the same way it
Speaker 2: caught other people, but I thought it looked great. Around
Speaker 2: the similar time Netflix launched, I think it was maybe
Speaker 2: twenty eighteen. The end of twenty eighteen, they launched a
Speaker 2: shadow and Bone, which was an adaptation of the Lee
Speaker 2: Bardugo books that I love. But with that adaptation, Lee
Speaker 2: essentially went, hey, guys, I wrote this ten years ago.
Speaker 3: I was young. It was my first ever book. I
Speaker 3: didn't really it was.
Speaker 2: Inspired by her own you know, I think it's like
Speaker 2: Slavic folklore heritage. So she was like, I want to
Speaker 2: reimagine this when we make it. I want to bring
Speaker 2: on Asian American writers. I want to make sure that
Speaker 2: this kind of fictionalized version of Asia that they had
Speaker 2: in it. That she decided to make the character Elena
Speaker 2: the main character, ended up making her that she was
Speaker 2: from that space, but also from the kind of generic, generic,
Speaker 2: you know, white Europe space, and there was this very
Speaker 2: interesting care put into that season. They also built in
Speaker 2: characters from the spinoff books, which were, you know, really popular,
Speaker 2: more popular arguably than Shadow and Bone. Six Crows and
Speaker 2: Crooked Kingdom still highly recommend. That was the kind of
Speaker 2: I did a lot of coverage on that shows too,
Speaker 2: so I had a lot of insight, but the kind
Speaker 2: of conversations they were having creatively, I was just like, Oh,
Speaker 2: these are people who deeply care about the show, and
Speaker 2: obviously Lee is the creator, so there is an authorship
Speaker 2: thing there where she is involved, but she's involved in
Speaker 2: the way unlike some other YA authors where you're like,
Speaker 2: I'm so glad you're thinking about stuff like this. And
Speaker 2: both seasons of the show are amazing, but Netflix is
Speaker 2: notorious but not really advertising past the first season in
Speaker 2: the same way second season. We never got the third
Speaker 2: and we never got the Sixercro's Ketadam spinoff.
Speaker 3: But that's one where for.
Speaker 2: Me, those Hollywood changes, those adaptation changes, those medium changes,
Speaker 2: that timeline that had passed. She reacted to it in
Speaker 2: a way that just made the work so much better
Speaker 2: for me, and I was like, how I read it?
Speaker 2: And those are the versions of the characters I see.
Speaker 2: So I think there is a version like Watchmen like
Speaker 2: that where it can be expansive. But also I think
Speaker 2: the problem with Netflix in general that it's had is
Speaker 2: like there is also a genericness to some of the
Speaker 2: stuff that they put out, and I do think The
Speaker 2: Witcher fell into looking like a Netflix original that didn't
Speaker 2: necessarily give it the space as something like this to
Speaker 2: show that we I think like season one foundation, I
Speaker 2: thought it was good, right, it was fine, but it
Speaker 2: was very different but season two off, where they really
Speaker 2: broke out and just be able to go crazy, that
Speaker 2: was such an incredible season of TV. And I think
Speaker 2: often something like The Witcher it needs more space outside
Speaker 2: of that, you know, the Netflix format to really have
Speaker 2: like a crazy wild second third season where you can
Speaker 2: expand outside. And but yeah, it's such a complicated thing.
Speaker 2: But Aboo, you do have some quite good rules. You
Speaker 2: have some quite strict rules. Let's talk about your rules.
Speaker 2: What are your top three Aboo rules for adaptations.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm curious how much you agree or disagree
Speaker 1: with that.
Speaker 3: I'm excited.
Speaker 1: I came up with three. I'm here to be I'm
Speaker 1: interested in hearing your takes. Rule number one, I think
Speaker 1: when you're making an adaptation, you do not change the characters.
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any reason to make dramatic changes
Speaker 1: to characters, except where there are instances like in in
Speaker 1: the Shang Chi franchise, where there are obviously characters with
Speaker 1: extremely racist, problematic origins.
Speaker 3: I infer.
Speaker 2: There's all historically racist stuff that needs to be recontextualized.
Speaker 1: And so recontextualizing that modernizing that I think in that instance, sure,
Speaker 1: that's absolutely aokay. But even then I would say that
Speaker 1: is a case by case consideration because sometimes the problematic
Speaker 1: origins of a character is the entire point of that character.
Speaker 2: Because also I would say, like you make a great
Speaker 2: point someone like Luke Cage, for example, right, a character
Speaker 2: that came out of.
Speaker 3: The Black Exploitation explosion.
Speaker 2: Definitely there are some elements of that story where you
Speaker 2: could look back at it and be like, Okay, this
Speaker 2: is kind of problematic, like I see where you're coming from.
Speaker 2: Lots of white guys writing on this, but it found
Speaker 2: its own audience, and because there was not a lot
Speaker 2: of representation at the time, it ended up becoming this
Speaker 2: very powerful thing. And I think that the Netflix show
Speaker 2: did a great job of playing.
Speaker 3: With both the power man history of it.
Speaker 2: Or there's this great moment where he kind of runs
Speaker 2: through a laundry kind of space while he's escaping and
Speaker 2: he ends up with the yellow shirt and this kind
Speaker 2: so they play into the corny past while still modernizing
Speaker 2: it for the future and not leaving that character there.
Speaker 2: So I agree, I think case by case basis. I
Speaker 2: am also like you know, for me, I think as well,
Speaker 2: like the notion of what changes of character is all
Speaker 2: to do with how good the writing is, how good
Speaker 2: the casting is. So for example, Doctor Manhattan Yah yah
Speaker 2: Abdolmaine the second like, that's one of the greatest castings
Speaker 2: of all time, greats reveals of all time.
Speaker 3: So well done.
Speaker 2: And you could argue that it is a different character
Speaker 2: because this is a Dr Manhattan who is more emotionally understanding,
Speaker 2: emotionally available. He's been a live longer, he's found someone
Speaker 2: that he feels like is worth you know, being human
Speaker 2: for so but again works because of the rest of
Speaker 2: the peace and everything around it. Okay rule number two.
Speaker 1: Okay, rule number two. I think it's extremely important for
Speaker 1: any creator to understand the original author or original creator's intent,
Speaker 1: whether or not you agree with it. You need to
Speaker 1: at least understand the author's intent originally, and then I
Speaker 1: think you need to do your best to stick to
Speaker 1: the same overarching themes and ideas that were presented in
Speaker 1: the original story. I strongly believe that obviously, like it,
Speaker 1: someone put words to paper because they had some worldview
Speaker 1: or some part of the human experience they wanted to
Speaker 1: capture and share in their story. And I don't think
Speaker 1: it's like the person adapting adapting its job to completely
Speaker 1: change that to decide this story is about something else.
Speaker 3: Now, yeah, I agree.
Speaker 2: So what I really love about this all as well
Speaker 2: is I think again it's all about you know, it's
Speaker 2: so funny.
Speaker 3: I bring up Watchmen so many times of this conversation because.
Speaker 2: The reality is guys like me too, but also like
Speaker 2: it's really funny because like when I have a lot
Speaker 2: of controversial feelings about it, because like you know, we've
Speaker 2: talked about this a lot on the podcast, but the
Speaker 2: IP was essentially stole them from Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, Yes,
Speaker 2: but like it ended up being something that was worked
Speaker 2: out via Alan Moore giving all of his rights and
Speaker 2: royalties to Dave, and now Dave does these adaptations and
Speaker 2: I love that for him, but like thematically, I love
Speaker 2: this because I do think that the thing reason Watchmen
Speaker 2: works so well is it understands what Alan Moore was
Speaker 2: doing even when some of the comic book readers maybe didn't.
Speaker 2: And I think another great example of this of how
Speaker 2: you can make this work even if you don't agree
Speaker 2: is like something like poor Verehoven's Starship Troopers, which adapts
Speaker 2: a very racist book, like the book is Hella racist
Speaker 2: that's super paramilitary pro everything. And what Verehoven did is
Speaker 2: he essentially adapted it so to the notes of the
Speaker 2: book that.
Speaker 3: It became a satire of itself.
Speaker 2: She's the point, right, So you can even disagree and
Speaker 2: show your disagreement by saying, hey, what does this look
Speaker 2: like when you really put it up there? As this
Speaker 2: person is saying, and I think this comes up with
Speaker 2: another thing that I know is super important to us
Speaker 2: both growing up, which is Harry Potter is like, actually,
Speaker 2: you actually sometimes like you shouldn't change that, because guess what,
Speaker 2: that's how we know she sucks.
Speaker 3: Like you go back in the books.
Speaker 2: You read the names she gave people, You read the
Speaker 2: fact that she's making the Irish kids power being blowing up.
Speaker 2: Guess what when you adapt that, stick to it, stick
Speaker 2: to your guns. If you want to adapt her, that's
Speaker 2: what you're adapting. So I kind of love this. There
Speaker 2: are times you can change the text, but at all
Speaker 2: times like, why are you telling the story if it's
Speaker 2: not about those themes or at least in reaction to
Speaker 2: those themes.
Speaker 1: Yes, at least in reaction an understanding of the original
Speaker 1: intention of themes is I think critical to.
Speaker 2: Him That's why I think something like this goes back
Speaker 2: to our you know, we've had this conversation on our
Speaker 2: anime adaptation episode. But I would say something like Ghost
Speaker 2: in the Shelle, Dragon ball Z. Those remakes are bad
Speaker 2: for many reasons in America, but mostly because they can
Speaker 2: textually do not understand the theme.
Speaker 3: That's the most interesting thing. It's like, yeah, the casting
Speaker 3: is bad, the movie is badly made.
Speaker 2: They think they can just go action movie, but it's
Speaker 2: Dragon ball Z or action movie but it's Ghost in
Speaker 2: the Shell. But Ghost in the Shell is about the
Speaker 2: demilitarization of Japan and how Yeah, then that forced them
Speaker 2: into this technological space like there's so much there that
Speaker 2: you can't just go okay, yeah, I'm just making it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's not just a rapper and an IP to
Speaker 1: make whatever movie you want to make, totally, and it's
Speaker 1: about engaging with the original text.
Speaker 3: If that is the log line of this episode, that's
Speaker 3: the one.
Speaker 2: It's not just a rapper and IP, Like, come on, guys,
Speaker 2: let's have an adapt Okay, final a boo adaptation rule.
Speaker 1: Last thing to wrap up today, rule number three, And
Speaker 1: this is one as a purist where I'm actually advocating
Speaker 1: for change. I think rule number three is that a
Speaker 1: creator should use their chosen medium to be additive to
Speaker 1: the original text, and they should play to their strengths.
Speaker 1: They should make changes that make that story fit better
Speaker 1: into the shape that you're now putting it in. If
Speaker 1: it is a book, don't just translate that the text
Speaker 1: of the book into a script. That is going to
Speaker 1: be a bad script. It's never going to make sense
Speaker 1: on film. Dannyville love understands this. There's so much dense
Speaker 1: lore in the Dune universe, and yet the films don't
Speaker 1: feel exposition heavy. There's no clunky voiceover that explains thing
Speaker 1: to you, thinks to you. Danny Ville Neve does a
Speaker 1: lot of showing because you understand the medium of film
Speaker 1: that I'm putting pictures up on screen and you can
Speaker 1: see them and interpret them. I don't need to constantly
Speaker 1: say things and explain things.
Speaker 2: Like the visual exposition of just like showing what's on
Speaker 2: the screen, rather than having someone go, hey, this is
Speaker 2: this family and this is that family and blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, no. I did think that was really great.
Speaker 2: Also loved that first movie because it just feels like
Speaker 2: a like a BBC four part special that they would
Speaker 2: have played like a very high budget one. But the
Speaker 2: narrative like fictional, the the trail that it takes is
Speaker 2: very much in that like not afraid to be slow,
Speaker 2: not afraid to just take its time. I also love
Speaker 2: this because my last agreement on this, I think this
Speaker 2: is a wonderful take and I think is maybe the
Speaker 2: most important of your rules. I'm gonna go for one
Speaker 2: that is pretty much like it is a very straight
Speaker 2: adaptation in a way, which is David Fincher's Gone Girl
Speaker 2: adapting to Jillian the book.
Speaker 3: But what he brought to it that the book, the
Speaker 3: Gillian's films book.
Speaker 2: Always have like a dark tone, right, That's how she is.
Speaker 2: The movie adaptations are similar. But something that.
Speaker 3: Was really able to be captured by Fincher was just.
Speaker 2: The the looming, dark, unsettling nature of like being settled
Speaker 2: into a marriage.
Speaker 3: You don't want to like.
Speaker 2: This, this this domestic horror. He was able to bring
Speaker 2: to it that in my opinion, like past it's domestic horror,
Speaker 2: you know, And in my opinion like that is such
Speaker 2: a fantastic take on the book. And I think, like
Speaker 2: when you I talk about additive those performances by Rosamond
Speaker 2: Pike and Ben Affleck and even Tyler Perry and you
Speaker 2: know now believed and we forget about him scandalized. But like,
Speaker 2: but but everything about that movie was additive to the
Speaker 2: point where like, I usually will choose to if I'm
Speaker 2: thinking about a story I like, and I will go
Speaker 2: back and read the book with Gonga. Pretty much every time,
Speaker 2: I'll just watch the movie because I think, like Tonally,
Speaker 2: Fincher understood what his playbook was and how well it
Speaker 2: would work with Flynn's and I think that's why it's
Speaker 2: such a fantastic and the exactly so.
Speaker 3: I love that one. Oh and boo, thank you so
Speaker 3: much for joining me. This was the life.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm really happy. And guys, you got it in
Speaker 2: the discord. You gotta let us know what you think
Speaker 2: of a boost rules. I think that are most sensible
Speaker 2: rules that we've laid out so on edythe I help.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and if you're enjoying The Witcher season four,
Speaker 1: please keep enjoying it. Yeah. Yeah, we don't have any
Speaker 1: is just for me. I'm the one losing sleep over it.
Speaker 1: Y'all enjoy it, you know what?
Speaker 3: We We love everything here and we love that other
Speaker 3: people don't love. And we like, you know, we like stuff.
Speaker 3: We don't like stuff that other people do love. That's
Speaker 3: the joy of being a fan. And yes, it's far.
Speaker 3: Enjoying it. Keep enjoying it. Larry Fishburn, I love you,
Speaker 3: Get a wig on a.
Speaker 2: Living it, get that Netflix money. I love you. You've
Speaker 2: been killing it since death. Wish knowing great, great, good job.
Speaker 2: I love you, Laurret's Fishburn.
Speaker 3: That is the episode.
Speaker 2: Thank you for listening, and guys, happy holidays.
Speaker 3: And stay safe. This season.
Speaker 2: X ray Vision is hosted by Jason steps Young and
Speaker 2: Rosie Night and is a production of iHeart Podcast. Our
Speaker 2: executive producers are Joel Monique and Aaron Korfman.
Speaker 1: Our supervising producer is Abusafar.
Speaker 2: Our producers are Common, Laurent Dean Jonathan and Fay Wack.
Speaker 1: A theme song is by Brian Vasquez, with alternate theme
Speaker 1: songs by Aaron Kaufman.
Speaker 2: Special thanks to Soul Rubin, Chris Lord, Kenny Goodman and
Speaker 2: Heidi our discord moderator