What Went Wrong With The Witcher: Bloodborne

The Witcher: Blood Origins has been panned by fans and critics alike, but what went wrong with the Netflix original?

The Witcher: Blood Origins has been panned by fans and critics alike, leading many to wonder what went wrong with the Netflix original series. Blood Origin is a prequel to The Witcher, set approximately 1,200 years before the events of the main series. Blood Origin attempts to explain the union of the orbs, the supernatural conflict of worlds and timelines that led to the arrival of humans and other goo monsters on the continent, and the origin of the first witcher.

Part of Blood Origin's struggles may have been the series' poor timing, with Henry Cavill's departure causing an uproar among fandoms. However, The Witcher: Bloodborne, as a series, suffers mostly based on its own mistakes and shortcomings. With news of Cavill's departure from The Witcher and Origins, Netflix's once-thriving franchise could be in serious trouble losing its fan base. The Witcher season 3 needs to avoid making the following mistakes in Blood Origin, or risk losing the fanbase entirely.

Blood Origin's Cut Episodes Led To Critical Underdevelopment

Emphasizes that the problem with the series as a whole is that there simply isn't enough time for the characters Or the plot matures beyond four episodes. Blood Origin's ending doesn't feel worthwhile, as the plot is woefully underdeveloped and the characters follow pathetically generic arcs. One of the biggest problems with episode editing is that there's very little time for world-building. Blood Origin is 1,200 years apart from the world of Geralt of Rivia, and there's a lot to explain about the world at that time, especially considering there weren't even humans on the continent yet.

Unfortunately, due to time constraints imposed by episode cuts, worldbuilding is limited to some vague descriptions of the "Thousand Years War", a golden empire that seems to have come out of nowhere, and a mysteriously important but largely unexplained Yes, the late Elven leader was named Solryth, and he lived early in the Bloodborne timeline. Beyond that, the series tries to create a binary of low-born versus high-born to provide depth to the world, a theme that hasn't been fully explored. Blood Origin established the social hierarchy well, and it's been there throughout the series, but they failed to explain how it works or adequately explore the complex ethics of social hierarchy.

Wizard: Bloodlines also seems to have been rushed in production, another example of underdevelopment. The nameless monster that wiped out the monarchy in the pilot episode is a particularly bad example of CGI. CGI issues persist throughout the series, though there are some decent animations as well. The series does contain some gorgeous scenes in beautiful locations, but when paired with the generic writing, the production feels a bit cliche. In the end, the show's limited number of episodes contributes to an overall sense of inadequacy that even affects what the show does well.

Blood Origin’s Characters Lack Depth

Another key issue with The Witcher: Blood Origin is that the characters seem like one-dimensional fantasy characters. As mentioned, a large part of this is due to episode restrictions. However, the non-original characters still come down to poor writing. Most of Blood Origin's characters are new, meaning they don't come from Andrzej Sapkowski's novels. So these new characters need time on screen and relevant dialogue to set up their backstories and make audiences care about them. Instead, they're given vague and generic backstories that offer minimal depth And caused the show to feel unimportant, creating a big problem for Netflix.

For example, Éile, also known as Lark, is told a very vague story about her need to redeem her clan. However, it has never been clear what she needs to redeem. Also, the Skylark clan, as well as all the other clans, are never explained in detail. Instead, they are simply inserted into the story to provide a paper-thin form of background. In the absence of more information about Skylark's past, she's just another fantasy warrior looking for some kind of ambiguous redemption. In fact, almost every character in Blood Origin is like this.

Fjall Stoneheart, who ended up being the first version of the Witcher, received the same amount of minimal background knowledge. In his first 5 minutes, Fjall goes from a quick fight scene to sleeping with Princess Merwin to being banished from his clan. His arc accelerates so quickly that his story can't take on any personal meaning. Fjall is as crucial to the plot of Blood Origin as The Lark, however, neither of them are On their own, as they lack depth. In the loose framework of overused fantasy tropes, these characters end up being placeholders.

Blood Origin Lacks Originality

The aforementioned lack of depth, in terms of the series' characters, plot, and worldbuilding, makes The Witcher: Origins come across as painfully unoriginal. Blood Origin uses narration in an attempt to provide depth and make the show feel more important, but it's simply disastrous. Jaskier briefly appears in the audience as the narrator, but that doesn't make the show feel relevant or make the narrative any less corny. In conversations with Jaskill, the cryptic narrator also seems to be used to justify himself for the show's lack of originality, but that defense only serves to highlight the show's lack of creativity.

Unfortunately for Blood Origin, this narrative actually exacerbates the feeling that this has happened a hundred times. The series managed to provide more depth to the main series, The Witcher, but the show failed to create any real meaning. The themes are another underdeveloped aspect of the show, and it feels like none of it is real matter. The Witcher: Bloodborne ends up feeling like a collage of worn-out fantasy tropes driven by a skeletal plot.

Negative reviews of The Witcher: Blood Origin emphasized the lack of an original plot. The show just wraps up another story about a group of outcasts battling an evil empire to save civilians. Without the aforementioned depth of character, the plot feels pointless and circular. Plus, the show left more questions unanswered than it answered. Ultimately, everything from the so-so plot to the lackluster character arcs reveal the show's unique underdevelopment in every aspect of its writing and production.