Toss a coin to your witcher!

[GloatingSwine]

Dandelion was Dandelion (well, he was Jaskier, but same diff).

Jaskier is his name in the Polish version. The direct English translation of that is "buttercup", but that wouldn't have worked quite as well in English so he got changed to a different meadow flower.

[Lemmy]

Jaskier is his name in the Polish version. The direct English translation of that is "buttercup", but that wouldn't have worked quite as well in English so he got changed to a different meadow flower.

It could work... If he had large green eyes, short black hair and no fingers.

[GloatingSwine]

It could work... If he had large green eyes, short black hair and no fingers.

Or he was a princess.

[Lemmy]

Or he was a princess.

But then he wouldn't have any cool superpowers! Or a monkey archvillain!

[Bartmanhomer]

So anyway. I'm watching The Witcher with my other brother and I'm going to tell you my thoughts on the show.

Spoiler: My Thoughts On The Witcher

Show

So anyway I know for a fact that the show is based on a video game which I never play it. This TV show is about a mutated monster hunter Geralt who find people more wicked than a monster in the world. And this show is crazy. At the beginning of the first episode, people are prejudice to Geralt because they fear his kind. Then he fights this woman who he kills and he was banned from the village from fear and prejudiced. Then there was this hunchback female half-elf who was sold by this woman wizard. She was learning how to conjured by magic but unable to handle it. Then things got crazy. Geralt fought this monster who was cursed and he got thrashed but managed to beat it and the creature transforms into a female human. Then the female half-elf has plastic surgery in a medieval way and she was beautiful again. This show is great. I think it's very Emmy-worthy. I'll give this show 5 out of 5 stars.

[Keltest]

The show is actually based on the books, which came before the games.

[Bartmanhomer]

The show is actually based on the books, which came before the games.

Interesting.

[Olinser]

There's also already a Witcher thread.

[Bartmanhomer]

I know that Geralt alignment is True Neutral. He doesn't care about good, evil, law and chaos and remains indifferent from everybody else.

[GloatingSwine]

Geralt actually cares quite a lot about doing the right thing, he likes to say he doesn't care so people will think he's all aloof and above it, but when it comes down to it he'll stick up for people that need it.

(Which is probably for the best, being a Witcher is a terrible job, the pay's rubbish and you always end up covered in muck and goo. You need to be pretty altruistic to actually stick at it).

[Bartmanhomer]

Geralt actually cares quite a lot about doing the right thing, he likes to say he doesn't care so people will think he's all aloof and above it, but when it comes down to it he'll stick up for people that need it.

(Which is probably for the best, being a Witcher is a terrible job, the pay's rubbish and you always end up covered in muck and goo. You need to be pretty altruistic to actually stick at it).

So he's Neutral Good then?

[Rynjin]

So he's Neutral Good then?

That's always been what I pegged him as. He values doing good above most other things; honor, the law, the opinions of other people, all fall by the wayside compared to his own convictions and judgement of right and wrong.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's always been what I pegged him as. He values doing good above most other things; honour, the law, the opinions of other people, all fall by the wayside compared to his own convictions and judgement of right and wrong.

Ok, I'm cool with him being Neutral Good. I've watched more episode and he's being Neutral Good.

[Mastikator]

I saw the last episode of the season yesterday and without spoilers I like how it all seemed to come together, my only complaint would be that I wish they had put dates on the screen so we know when they change the time. You shouldn't have to find pertinent information outside the show for it to make sense. Because at first I thought everything was happening in chronological order and it took me until the final episode to puzzle it together.

I also like that Geralt curses a lot, it gives me the impression that while he's very powerful and resourceful he's not invincible. He curses because he's not in control of the situation, the monsters could kill him, a wrong decision could end him whether it's because of reputation or fangs.

After watching all of it I asked my brother (who has played all the games, I haven't) if Yennefer was a villain, he told me all sorcerers are bad people. I get what he's saying, they kinda are. None of them are sympathetic, but they're all terrifying.

All in all excellent show.

[Lord of the Helms]

I saw the last episode of the season yesterday and without spoilers I like how it all seemed to come together, my only complaint would be that I wish they had put dates on the screen so we know when they change the time. You shouldn't have to find pertinent information outside the show for it to make sense. Because at first I thought everything was happening in chronological order and it took me until the final episode to puzzle it together.

I actually rather liked that detail. It's a bit hard to pin down when Geralts time-line in the show begins, but with Yennefer, it's clear that her origin story long before meeting Geralts is shown from the beginning, and the way they show more and more clearly that it plays in different times was a nice touch. At the very latest, it should have been clear by the time Geralts is at the wedding feast in Cintra that is clearly set before Ciri is even born (which incidentally also had the most hilarious moment in the show for me), but there are plenty of other hints in Yennefers timeline too, especially when they reference Nilfgaard as a chaotic backwater where no-one would want to go.

If there's one thing that bugs me, it's that while Yennefers character seems spot on, her powers are wildly inconsistent.

Spoiler

Show

The episode with the Assassin gunning after the queen she was escorting ( which made no sense to begin with if the king wanted to have his wife killed) showed her running away from him rather than even trying to fight at all, at best slightly slowing down his attack creature. The episode with the Dragon had her casually paralyze the dwarves for what must have been multiple minutes at least, then fight the actual enemies showing up afterwards with Sword rather than Magic. Then in the final episode, she casually deflects fireballs and ends up being a person of mass destruction able do throw enough fire to devestate a whole army. That's a pretty enormous leap which can't really be explained by "stopped holding back" in my view.

[GentlemanVoodoo]

I am mixed on the show but after re-watching it again found it to be a mediocre fantasy show. The reasons are below based on what the show itself had to offer.

The time jumping narrative approach to telling the story did not work period. I understand the reason was to due to adapting the Last Wish book that contains all the prequel stuff but even so it would have been better to make it into a linear story with the occasional flashbacks as needed instead of time jumps.

Most of the acting fell short or was just bad to begin with. For instance, Anya Chalotra's acting was engaging at first but towards the end of the season lost its luster. While though the dialogue did contribute some aspect to this it seemed Chalotra didn't care by the final episodes. Freya Allan was hit or miss and some of the other cast's performance like Mimi Ndiweni and Anna Shaffer I found very stale. The only solid performance was Cavill who out of all the actors looked to have the most enthusiasm for the character he was playing to the very end.

Special effects were also hit or miss. It is pretty clear the show did not have a budget like Game of Thrones did but I expect better CGI. The quality was really on par with a Syfy movie (think Sharknado). What did surprise me was the effects of the monsters that required body suits which was very good. Costume choices were very hit or miss but location settings were pretty solid.

Fight scenes again were hit and miss. Some were awesome and others were pretty poor.

Getting back to the narrative, I will say this was hit or miss. For the Geralt storyline, as a whole it felt very monster of the week. Certain scenes did redeem it somewhat but on the whole not much. Yennifer's was by far the most engaging up to the point of her transformation but after that I felt it flopped with no further character development. Ciri's did nothing but show she is the McGuffin and at that not a very interesting one.

Lastly, certain scene choices were a clear cry of desperation as with the orgy scene. To me it served no purpose other than to say the show was just as edgy as what GoT was.

On the whole, if you take The Witcher as just another generic and forgettable fantasy show it is enjoyable in that regard. But for me it was again mediocre with a lot of room for improvement.

[Saintheart]

For the Geralt storyline, as a whole it felt very monster of the week.

That's probably a pretty literal job description for a witcher!

[Rynjin]

I think the format worked perfectly for Netflix, particularly with how short the season was.

Too many of these Netflix shows are frankly TIRING to watch, being filmed as though they're one big 13 hour long movie instead of a tv series. The episodic narrative makes for a much breezier and relaxing pace, thus making the show actually more fun to watch.

[Lemmy]

Even though I didn't like the constant time-skipping, I think they had a good reason for it:

Make the 3 main characters appear in every episode. Even if only for a scene or two.

[Eldan]

No problem with the time skipping. I thought some of the stories could have used some breathing room.

Also, really not convinced by the casting of some characters that are going to be important later on. Triss, especially, made almost no impression and I don't think I like their Vilgefortz. And if they go by the book storyline, Ciri will basically have to carry an entire season or two of the show by herself. Not sure she's good enough for that.

[Dienekes]

So, 4 episodes in now. It's good. I rather like it. Though when Triss identified herself as Triss I was a bit flabbergast. Now, I came from the books first. But I have to say, I enjoy her so much more in the games that game Triss has basically become Triss for me.

I could understand the changes if 1) it was more true to the books. But so far it isn't. Book Triss is kinda horrible.* Or 2) the actress was so damn good I wouldn't care, and no. She hasn't really impressed so far. Maybe she can show off her acting chops more down the line.

Anyway, Cavill seems to be having a lot of fun with the role. Which is great to see, you need that to get the audience on board some of the silliness that comes from the series.


*If anyone asks you Triss or Yen and you're going by the books, the answer is "Neither, Geralt can do better."

[LibraryOgre]

Wife and I watched the first two episodes. I found the first a little bit confusing, but it helped set some background. The second was much more enjoyable, and I look forward to continuing it. I have no familiarity with the Witcher at all (I had to look up on a wiki what a Witcher even was), so I think it argues pretty well for the show, at least with middle aged geeks.

[Thomas Cardew]

Wife and I watched the first two episodes. I found the first a little bit confusing, but it helped set some background. The second was much more enjoyable, and I look forward to continuing it. I have no familiarity with the Witcher at all (I had to look up on a wiki what a Witcher even was), so I think it argues pretty well for the show, at least with middle aged geeks.

This comment reminds of this Atlantic review, particularly the last two paragraphs.

I suspect those timelines are partly to blame for the gulf between the critical and audience reception of the show—to video-game players, it’s second nature to turn to the internet when you get stuck. Why won’t this door open? Where is the sacred seal? How can I kill this boggle-eyed goat thing? Netflix’s version of The Witcher simply ports this approach to television. It’s the first time I’ve thought about a drama series needing a walkthrough.

In its own way, then, The Witcher is groundbreaking. Critics have wondered for decades now why games make such bad source material for drama. (Remember Alicia Vikander in the recent Tomb Raider? Michael Fassbender in Assassin’s Creed? Rihanna in Battleship? No? Don’t worry, no one else does either.) The Witcher bucks that trend, not just because it ultimately derives from books, but because it embraces, rather than rejects, what people love about video games. It is messy, and absurd, but also—it is fun.

I think that nails some of the issue, the audience's willingness to engage with the material outside the show if they want/need to know more. Some critics aren't just willing to do that at all. Of course some critics aren't even willing to do their own job so take that with a grain of salt.. On the whole I think you can enjoy an episode just by watching it. If you want more context or don't understand something, it's easy enough to look up the answer. But the show isn't going to bog itself down with a whole bunch of unnecessary detail/ exposition.

[Cikomyr]

I didn't cared for it. I finished it yesterday evening, and my girlfriend and I were pretty pissed at the journey we took.

1- the show is too much in love with its own lore and mythology. It throws kingdoms, names and historical events around without ever sufficiently establishing them, and hope that we get engage.

Must be fun to have an established knowledge of the books or/and the game, but I didn't had that. So the only kingdoms I remember being relevant was Nilfgaard, Ciren and the kingdom where the king ****ed his sister.

2- the show structure itself to be a middle ground between "having a serialized plot" and "stand alone episodes".

This leads to tepid individual episodes when taken on their own. There's too much overarching plot happening for me to enjoy an episode on its own (exception to episodes 3 with the Sister****er and Episode 6 with the Dragon, both of them having solid self contained stories that, had the show been more about that, I would have enjoyed more ).

However, the overarching plot is not satisfying.

3- the Overarching plot is not satisfying

The show is clearly structure around a mystery: what is Ciri's place in Destiny? That's a good mystery, I have to admit. That's the one thing that I found interesting after a bad opening episode.

Ciri's place in Destiny is the prime motivator of the bad guys. That's why they attack Ciren. That's why they recruit the doppelganger. That's why the doppelganger backstabs Nilfgaard. That's why Nilfgaard mobilises it's entire army at the end of the show. Even Yennifer points out Nilfgaard makes a strategic mistake that we know is about catching Ciri.

But we never get to know what the **** is up with that. It's not "she can do magic" because, people, we have seen 50 mages being outright murderer by Nilfgaard.

Speaking of Yennifer. I liked her character. I liked her story. I liked her journey.

She had no point in the ****ing plot at all, except turning the tide of a battle that had no buildup outside the episode where it was fought. She has no involvement with the central plot/mystery of the goddamn show.


Very disapointing. Acting was good, production value was good, effects were good. Story and lore was ****.

[Eldan]

A lot of that was down to the fact that the Witcher, for a long time, was a series of semi-connected short stories that had very little overarching plot. More like, say, a Conan than a Game of Thrones. Sapkowski only started writing books about the Witcher after a dozen short stories.

And the series tries to have its cake and eat it too: the plots of the episodes are based on the first short story collection for the most part, though they are in a different order. But Ciri isn't in any of those short stories at all. In fact, she's only introduced for the first time in the last story of the second short story collection.

So, the series tries to do two things at once: have an overarching plot, based on the later books, while simultaneously also adapting all the short stories that come chronologically earlier. Which causes the main problems of the series: the weird timelines that are decades apart, but shown at the same time and the extreme compression of the content of these short stories. None of the stories was really properly developed, most of them are missing a lot of context, some are missing almost everything.

I mean, does anyone who hasn't read the books even remember Filavandrel after the series? Or was there really any point at all to the dryads of Brokilon as presented?

[Kyberwulf]

Huh. I didn't get that at all. So much for trusting in your audience to not have to be spoonfed everything. I thought it did things pretty cool. It focused on what the characters were doing and how they saw things. I didn't mind that it didn't explain everything, and trust in that season two will explain more things to me.

[Eldan]

Yeah, but, like, a lot of the episode plots were entirely different in the short stories and had a lot more character depth. And many of those characters won't show up again for maybe several seasons, at which point, again, who will be remembering Filavandrel? And from what I remember, Brokilon and the dryads will never really come up again. They just cut out everything that made them really meaningful.

I do think that the series could have been improved a lot by giving various stories more time to breathe. Which they couldn't, since they limited themselves to one hour an episode and had to put some of the metaplot of the later books into each episode.

By this point going by just the short stories without the book metaplot, Yennefer is just a power hungry sorceress that Geralt runs into occasionally and is in love with. Cintra is just a kingdom that Geralt once came through and got involved in one of his usual weird adventures where a man with the head of a hedgehog tried to woo the princess. Nilfgaard is a nation far away in the south that is mostly defined by being a chaotic mess because the last king died and his heir vanished.

[Keltest]

Yeah, but, like, a lot of the episode plots were entirely different in the short stories and had a lot more character depth. And many of those characters won't show up again for maybe several seasons, at which point, again, who will be remembering Filavandrel? And from what I remember, Brokilon and the dryads will never really come up again. They just cut out everything that made them really meaningful.

I do think that the series could have been improved a lot by giving various stories more time to breathe. Which they couldn't, since they limited themselves to one hour an episode and had to put some of the metaplot of the later books into each episode.

By this point going by just the short stories without the book metaplot, Yennefer is just a power hungry sorceress that Geralt runs into occasionally and is in love with. Cintra is just a kingdom that Geralt once came through and got involved in one of his usual weird adventures where a man with the head of a hedgehog tried to woo the princess. Nilfgaard is a nation far away in the south that is mostly defined by being a chaotic mess because the last king died and his heir vanished.

You misremember. Brokilon does come up again. Geralt actually spends a moderate amount of time there, and meets a major character there later on.

[Cikomyr]

See, episode 3 was, for me, the episode that resonated best with me because it was a fantastic ghost/monster hunter story. All about uncovering shameful secret, figuring out how to hunt the muster, and a cool kick ass action scene.

You could have done *that*. Some high fantasy Supernatural kick-off. That was solid.

[Rynjin]

I didn't cared for it. I finished it yesterday evening, and my girlfriend and I were pretty pissed at the journey we took.

1- the show is too much in love with its own lore and mythology. It throws kingdoms, names and historical events around without ever sufficiently establishing them, and hope that we get engage.

Must be fun to have an established knowledge of the books or/and the game, but I didn't had that. So the only kingdoms I remember being relevant was Nilfgaard, Ciren and the kingdom where the king ****ed his sister.

I mean, those ARE the only ones that are relevant, so they're the only ones you need to know.

It's like starting any epic fantasy series. You might hear names long before learning their significance. This is good worldbuilding, as it keys the reader (or in this case viewer) in that the world is larger than what they know, but doesn't have the characters be idiots who don't know their own world's geography.

2- the show structure itself to be a middle ground between "having a serialized plot" and "stand alone episodes".

This leads to tepid individual episodes when taken on their own. There's too much overarching plot happening for me to enjoy an episode on its own (exception to episodes 3 with the Sister****er and Episode 6 with the Dragon, both of them having solid self contained stories that, had the show been more about that, I would have enjoyed more ).

This I agree with to an extent. The show would have been better had it been more serialized, but it's kind of a necessary evil for how they wanted to introduce the main character early on instead of having her show up midway through season 2 or something.

However, the overarching plot is not satisfying.

3- the Overarching plot is not satisfying

The show is clearly structure around a mystery: what is Ciri's place in Destiny? That's a good mystery, I have to admit. That's the one thing that I found interesting after a bad opening episode.

Ciri's place in Destiny is the prime motivator of the bad guys. That's why they attack Ciren. That's why they recruit the doppelganger. That's why the doppelganger backstabs Nilfgaard. That's why Nilfgaard mobilises it's entire army at the end of the show. Even Yennifer points out Nilfgaard makes a strategic mistake that we know is about catching Ciri.

But we never get to know what the **** is up with that. It's not "she can do magic" because, people, we have seen 50 mages being outright murderer by Nilfgaard.

Speaking of Yennifer. I liked her character. I liked her story. I liked her journey.

She had no point in the ****ing plot at all, except turning the tide of a battle that had no buildup outside the episode where it was fought. She has no involvement with the central plot/mystery of the goddamn show.


Very disapointing. Acting was good, production value was good, effects were good. Story and lore was ****.

I mean, the first season doesn't really HAVE a plot. It's just setup for a plot. Like the first season of most shows (or the first book of most series for that matter).

You meet most of the primary characters (even if some of them aren't actually named in the show...apparently one of the dwarves in the dragon episode is Yarpen Ziggrin?), you learn the instigating events for the main plot happening, and all the characters from their disparate backgrounds are brought together in one place, finally.

I'll also look askance at the "battle that had no buildup" comment. The battle was built up for the entire season. Nilfgaard attacks Cintra and is trying to push further north. They mention several times that Brenna is a key defensive position, and it's a big thing in episode 7 that about half of the Brotherhood wish to aid the North against Cintra, and half do not. The Brotherhood essentially splinters over this and the sorcerers and sorceresses go to aid in the war, hoping to stall Nilfgaard long enough for the Temerian army to arrive.

Keep in mind here, I haven't read the books either. That's just what is apparent from watching the show.