Netflix’s best fantasy show isn’t The Witcher: It’s the one that threw out the rulebook and won

According to reports, the best fantasy show is not The Witcher. It is the one that bends the rules and still wins. Yes, it is none other than Castlevania, with a 94% critics score on Rotten Tomatoes compared to 80% for The Witcher. Even the audiences liked Castlevania better than the latter, as per the scores and ratings.

The Witcher is based on Andrzej Sapkowski’s books by the same name and follows Geralt Rivia, a mutant who hunts monsters in a complex, medieval-inspired world. The show premiered in 2019 on Netflix and portrays a fascinating world with political intrigue and sorcery, blending it further with mythology. It received mixed reception despite having the big cast names, while Castlevania, another adaptation, worked just perfectly well in terms of quality and coherence. Here is how.

Netflix’s best fantasy show isn’t The Witcher but Castlevania, here's why

As mentioned, the Netflix show received a mixed reception for its inconsistent tone and timeline confusion. It was also called out for its underdeveloped supporting characters and emotional arcs. In many areas, it departed from the actual source material, which upset the book fans. Despite its global success and multiple seasons, The Witcher hasn't achieved the same cultural dominance as other Netflix hits like Stranger Things or Bridgerton, which was not expected.

Castlevania was also an adaptation, though a faithful one, of the classic Konami games. It has sharp writing and appropriate dialogue and portrays deep character arcs, especially for Trevor and Sypha. It was complemented with stylised animation and brutal fight choreography to maintain the essence of the game. The cohesive world Castlevania built was phenomenal, even the departure from the source material was justified and purposeful.

On the other hand, The Witcher borrows from both the books and games but struggles to strike a consistent tone or internal logic. It portrays shifting timelines, which confused the viewers. Yennefer and Ciri's arcs are disconnected at times from Geralt. This frustrated the long-time fans, and even Andrzej Sapkowski, the original author, has expressed criticism.

However, the viewers are more forgiving of creative liberties if the final product is strong, consistent, and emotionally compelling. Castlevania shows how bold adaptation choices can still win over critics and fans if the execution is sharp. The Witcher, on the other hand, tried to please too many camps—book fans, game fans, and general audiences—without fully committing to a clear creative vision.

Here is what Castlevania did better than The Witcher

In Castlevania, Dracula is portrayed as a tragic antihero motivated by grief. This makes him deeply emotional, rather than just a game boss. It worked well as the show brought more character-driven stories rather than filling it with every game canon unnecessarily. The audience could feel the fresh air within the same game world they love. The creators used the universe as a toolkit, not a checklist. This made the beloved characters more humane and connected with the viewers.

Trending

On the other hand, The Witcher lacked focus and alienated fans of both the game and the book. Even though it had more material to draw from, it struggled to unify it.

Arcane is another masterclass when it comes to adaptation, a Netflix show that you should look up. Instead of trying to adapt the gameplay or mechanics, Arcane focused on Jinx, Vi, and Jayce, crafting a compelling emotional and political drama. It worked for them as they built a standalone narrative that included the same characters while making them more complex and universally resonant.

×

Was this article helpful?

Thank You for feedback