witcher (netflix) topic

[lordraphael]

so i have finished the series. I have read the books played all games and i must say i like the series. I was pleasantly surprised by it, especially given I do not like the casting for the most part.( henry cavill does an amazing job, i was really surprised by him, s odoes yennefer i must admit, altho i still dont agree why they wouldnt cast someone closer to the book yennefer. I like the ciri cast aswell, and the dandelion cast, still getting used to him being called yaskier. Negative outliers are definetly fringilla vigo, calanthe and foltest, Triss could have been good if they had given her red hair at least. the actress does a decent job.) Overall they captured the spirit of the books nicely and much better than i expected ( always room for improvement ) Afaik they used the shortstory book and the first book of the ciri saga for that season, so it wasnt as bad as i expected ( thought they owuld mix up the hwole source material.

What i didnt like is how they portrayed nilfgaard. In the books NIlfgaard is different. THey focused far to much on portraying nilfgaard as the complete evil while its not as black and white in the books, and in the games for that matter. Basically all the characters of nilfgaard have been weak and superficial, especially cahir, who plays quite the big role in the books.

Also the way magic is conveyed in the series ( when nilfgaards mages sacrfice themselves creating fireballs ) is a bit off to me.

Overall good series. 8 / 10 id say, maybe even 9 / 10 if i ignore my dislike for some of the cast.

your thoughts

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[wardyb1]

there's a book? hmm maybe I should read that.

where can you watch the series?

Whole series is currently on Netflix. Books are quite good especially considering they are all translated from Polish.

[Goodspeed]

I haven't watched it yet, but the metascore (53) is disappointing. That and the high imdb score (89, though likely will settle a bit lower) makes me think it's mostly fan service. Low metascore and high imdb score is typically what happens when there's not much to be said for the show critically, but fans still like it because they are already invested.

In reviews, the hard-to-follow story (which if you've read the books isn't an issue) and sub-par writing/dialogue seem to be the most common complaints.

You might wanna edit the title. The "3" implies it's about the game.

[wardyb1]

I haven't watched it yet, but the metascore (53) is disappointing. That and the high imdb score (89, though likely will settle a bit lower) makes me think it's mostly fan service. Low metascore and high imdb score is typically what happens when there's not much to be said for the show critically, but fans still like it because they are already invested.

In reviews, the hard-to-follow story (which if you've read the books isn't an issue) and sub-par writing/dialogue seem to be the most common complaints.

Honestly, the dialogue isn't too bad. If you consider writing to be "plot" then yes it has more issues. The big thing is pacing. You can see where the show makers wanted to be at by the end of the first season. The problem is what they've cut to get there, while trying to show and build the characters. I have no issues with cutting things from the books, it is expected, but at times it is like they almost haven't been aggressive enough in cutting some things.

spoiler

For example, Brokilon is really important in setting up things between Ciri and Geralt in the books, as well as showing the war between elves and humans. Now they've gone and cut both those things from the Brokilon storyline, without cutting Brokilon. They've should've just gutted that all if they wanted and could've spent more time building the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer, or making Ciri not seem so bland.

At times the story is going at a great pace and you feel some real building between characters and who they are, and then it just jumps all over and you feel like you've missed an episode. This is the big reason I think everyone who has already read the books or invested in the world through the games are loving it, as they already have the background knowledge needed to buy in. I think despite simplifying it, all they needed was to add over the top of the start of some scenes is add a small title card with "place - date". Would've solved some problems for beginners.

All in all, it feels like "The Witcher" which is almost the most important thing. Henry is perfect at playing Geralt. I think the show will greatly improve in season 2, now that the timelines have all converged. Hopefully people stick with it and it can really hold its own.

[lordraphael]

ye brokilon was actually sth which was terribly done. completly forgot about it. in the end it felt a bit rushed indeed. 8 episodes is just 2 little for 2 books. plus if you want to narrate some "origin storys " for characters. WHich is one of the reasons i liked the series much better in the later half compared to the first few episodes. Pacing and story was much more coherent. I truly think s 2. will be better.

[Hazza54321]

I havent played the games or read the books but i really liked it, my only concern is how inconsistent magic is, some mages cast 1 spell and die, others cast many powerful ones and live there doesnt seem to be a system to it. Sometimes the time jumps were confusing but after seeing the entire season you could work it out.

[gibson]

I liked it, although I didn’t even realize they were jumping around in time til I think episode 4 haha, not a huge deal though, things still make sense. The universe and premise is just very cool.

[Horsemen]

I liked it, although I didn’t even realize they were jumping around in time til I think episode 4 haha, not a huge deal though, things still make sense. The universe and premise is just very cool.

Ok, zoomer

[princeofcarthage]

I wanted the adaptation to be based on events of wild hunts but I am glad they chose the stories they chose as these were never been able to be experienced on screen. Some things do break the 4th wall like forced diversity, specially the Fringilla Vigo being black. Little bit disappointed by Triss look tho. Its funny how Geralt does "hm" as in game, although would have been nice to include some other trademark dialogues as well. The color scheme or idk what its called tends to be bit blackish like Witcher 1. At some times yes it is full of colors and vibrant but in general it lacks. The graphical pleasure of witcher 3 could have been better maybe? One thing which also lacks is Geralts use of signs, he used only aard twice or thrice in whole series I think. Given that in books it is used rarely as compared to games. All in all one of the best series to come in long time 9/10. 10/10 if they had got the cast proper...

[Mr_Bramboy]

I wanted the adaptation to be based on events of wild hunts but I am glad they chose the stories they chose as these were never been able to be experienced on screen. Some things do break the 4th wall like forced diversity, specially the Fringilla Vigo being black. Little bit disappointed by Triss look tho. Its funny how Geralt does "hm" as in game, although would have been nice to include some other trademark dialogues as well. The color scheme or idk what its called tends to be bit blackish like Witcher 1. At some times yes it is full of colors and vibrant but in general it lacks. The graphical pleasure of witcher 3 could have been better maybe? One thing which also lacks is Geralts use of signs, he used only aard twice or thrice in whole series I think. Given that in books it is used rarely as compared to games. All in all one of the best series to come in long time 9/10. 10/10 if they had got the cast proper...

I believe this is actually how Triss is described in the books. Red-haired Triss was a huge outrage when the game was released.

[lordraphael]

I'm pretty sure triss. Is supposed to be red haired. Been a while since I. Read the books. But I'm almost certain that the pc games stayed true to the source material in terms of appearance

[gibson]

According to a quick google searched in the books she has chestnut hair, which I assume means brown

[princeofcarthage]

It changed in books from chestnut in start to red in end, I guess it makes sense for netflix show to brown or w.e right now and game to show red.

[gibson]

Yea it makes sense for her to have brown hair since the series is towards the beginning. Anyway I'd rather have a good actor that lacks 1 or 2 physical characteristics than a mediocre or shit actor who has all the characteristics, assuming that characteristic isn't a crucial plot point.

[Mr_Bramboy]

I remember it now, there was a translation error. In the original Polish version she has red hair. The English translation used the word 'chestnut' because a type of red chestnut is more common in Poland or something of the sort.

[princeofcarthage]

Meh I played witcher 3 again after watching series! Graphics in TV suck, Witcher 3 was such a visual treat...

[gibson]

Just started downloading the witcher 3, looking forward to playing it tomorrow.

[RefluxSemantic]

So I watched the first two episodes, and it was.. meh? The acting felt subpar, the dialogue mediocre, the special effects and costumes meh and the storyline is hard to follow at the moment. That being said, these are usually very common in series, where the budget per episode just isn't that high as what I'm used to from movies. It's entertaining for the most part and I don't know if I should expect much more from a series.

[Goodspeed]

Yes it's pretty meh. Entertaining enough though. We finished it, but there were many eyeroll moments.
Writing good characters and dialogue is hard, and not really expected unless it's the core appeal of your show. It's why shows like GoT are so rare. Fantasy is the main appeal, not relatable characters.

It explains the difference between the responses of critics and of the general population. Critics aren't as sensitive to the immediate appeal of a fantasy show like this (which is rare) as the genpop.

[RefluxSemantic]

I also thought the first episode had poor pacing. Usually you have some introduction episode where you start to understand what the fuck is going on. I don't mind it when they don't take a very slow approach, but this was just too fast. They hardly even explained what a witcher is, or what sort of kingdoms there are, or what the fuck is going on at all. The second episode seemed to be paced more appropriately.

[Goodspeed]

Yeah I felt it was all moving very fast in the beginning as well. Definitely one of the bigger things they could have improved on is taking their time explaining things.
There's certainly potential for it to improve in later seasons, with the stage set. I just hope they hire better writers.

One thing that was sorely missing and which gave me renewed appreciation for the intro of GoT, is a map of the world. There was literally 1 moment in the entire show where they showed a map and it wasn't long. I recommend looking one up before watching the rest.

[Djigit]

I can't help but think that heroic fantasy is a subgenre...as in "subpar" or "subhuman" rather than its usual meaning.
Luckily there are a few exceptions that improve its reputation, but the Witcher series ain't one.

[RefluxSemantic]

I finished the season. I thought overall it was pretty good. I don't think I agree with the mediocre reviews from the critics.

The acting was pretty good and the writing of dialogue seemed pretty good too. Usually series have many moments where the dialogue feels unnatural or forced to me and the acting is pretty poor in those scenes, which annoys me. The witcher didn't have this happen and I thought these aspects were far above average for a series and often on par with movies. In that regard I think the witcher deserved praise. I thought most of the scenes were pretty cinematic. None of the special effects were terrible and some were pretty good. I also thought that the action scenes were particularly well done - normally action seems bore or even annoy me, but in the witcher they were enjoyable to me.

Warning: some spoilers ahead from here on out
The story was decent too. It's just that the start was pretty bad. It needed one or two episodes to introduce the world and some of the characters. I thought for example that Yennefer's storyline worked out really well, because they took the time to introduce her character and they took the time to explain what being a mage is like and they took the time to explain what motivated her. For Geralt - probably the most important character - this was mostly missing. There was little to no explaining as to what being a witcher is about, where he came from or what he did. On top of that, the first episode started off with this very confusing storyline that did nothing to introduce the world. In general the world lacked explaining and introduction. Only near the end I started forming an idea of what the world looked like and because I played the witcher I could use my own understanding of what witchers and Geralt are like to fill in the blanks. But even then this aspect of things was done poorly. They could have used an episode that outlines what a witcher is and does more explicitly, like a simple episode where Geralt just does a generic monster contract and where they also briefly introduce parts of the world. Instead, they had this weird storyline with Renfri which didn't really seem to achieve much to me. In terms of story it was mostly confusing and irrelevant, in terms of introducing the world it achieved nothing and it didn't really seem to develop Geralt's character much.

The storyline was confusing at parts too. It took a lot of effort to start figuring out some of the events were clearly not chronological. It took until episode 4 for it to become clear to me that Geralt's timeline hadn't caught up with Ciri's timeline. In episode 3 I was lucky enough to figure out that Yennefer's timeline was even further in the past back then; Geralt was dealing with some king and in Yennefer's timeline there was some ball where one mother called some kid by the same name. I assumed this was meant to showcase that Yennefer's timeline was actually from the past, from when this king was still young. It wasn't extremely bothersome that the timelines were convoluted, but they could have made it more clear than just this one name being dropped without any emphasis on it. I suppose this didn't bother me too much however.

Besides the rocky start I did think everything was great. I liked the story. They developed most of the characters very well. I thought all characters of the main cast were believable in their motivations and actions, and none of them seemed shallow to me. The overall story arch was decent too. I enjoyed the theme of destiny and I enjoyed that it slowly but naturally developed into a large conflict and I thought it was believable how the main characters were drawn into this conflict. I'm also curious to see how the story progresses. So all the core elements were good to me. It was really only lacking in properly introducing the world, but moving forward this shouldn't be an issue. I'm looking forward to the next season.