Toss a coin to your witcher!

[GloatingSwine]

The first clue I had was the seasons. The stuff with Ciri happens in the dead of winter, while Geralt's stuff happens in the spring/summer. Once they were both in the snow, I knew that they would be meeting soon. And they did.

It was hard to tell when Yennefer's storyline was, but she explicitly states at one point that she's been doing the ambassador thing for years. The timeline of Yennefer's story also doesn't matter that much - it happens some indeterminate time in the past, but there's no connection to the other storylines until she meets up with Geralt.

For that matter, the timeline of Geralt's stuff doesn't matter that much either - it too is just "in the past" up until the point he attends the banquet in Cintra. It could be 6 months or 50 years. The only constraint is Dandelion.

Once I knew the timelines existed it was no problem keeping them straight.

AFAICT Yennefer's story is the earliest, then Geralt's, then Ciri's. Yennefer is a youngish woman so it would be ca. 1195 (She was born in 1173), Dandelion meets Geralt probably in his mid to late 20s and he's born in 1229, so sometime in the mid to late 1240s, and the Slaughter of Cintra is in 1263.

[Rynjin]

"Magic exists, therefore all inconsistencies flaws in presentation are justified" is the laziest of lazy cop-outs. They never mention anything about magic make-up (closest thing we get is the mages modifying their own appearance).And as I already said twice, it's not just about aging. The character physically change at all.

It's a flaw in visual presentation. One that could be easily avoided too... Have the characters have slightly longer/shorter hair in different time periods. Have Geralt have a barely noticeable scar in one of the timelines, but not the others, have one of Yennefer's customers actually use some rejuvenating makeup... That way, it would initially look like a mistake and inconsistency, would then turn out to be intentional. It'd have made the mini-"twist" feel rather clever, rather than cheap and lazy.

It's a pretty minor flaw. It doesn't harm the story much... But it's there. And it's indeed a flaw. It didn't bother me much, but I felt it was worth saying that while the criticism made by another poster is hyperbolic, it's not completely unfounded.

The problem is they're kind of constrained by the source material(s) in that regard, especially RE: Geralt scars.

Geralt does eventually get a nasty facial scar (as seen in the games) but it's not until after the books end as I recall.

And neither really change their appearance over time because let's be real...people just kind of settle into a default look after a while without some outside factor forcing them to change it.

[Thomas Cardew]

Yes but something as basic as the Hollywood equivalent of baby powder in Calanthe and Eist's hair would have help a lot in demonstrating the passage of time. Secondly while magic make up is definitely a thing in this setting, Yny's lilac and gooseberry perfume as the most obvious example, it's also one of the first things that should be tossed in a television adaptation (especially for non mages/ non ageless witchers) to help visually show the passage of time.

[Saintheart]

Sounds like what's needed is a fan edit of the 8 episodes into chronological order...

[crayzz]

Sounds like what's needed is a fan edit of the 8 episodes into chronological order...

I don't think so! For one thing, the erratic chronology is too ingrained in the structure of the show. You'd also lose powerful elements like the dramatic irony of Cintra's court mocking the Nilfgaard prince (was he a prince? I don't remember his exact ranking).

Jumping around in time as the stories progress was a good idea and I'm glad they tried it. It would have been better had there been some better visual cues (minor costume design changes, though someone upthread mentioned the seasons changing which did go over my head) in my opinion, but as is figuring out what's going on when wasn't that hard (though I knew about the messed up chronology going into the show, so I suspect I was better prepared for it than someone going in blind). It's just mildly annoying juggling the various timelines, and the moments of confusion, however brief, don't really add anything to the experience of watching it. It's not like Arrival where the messed up chronology is the point.

And neither really change their appearance over time because let's be real...people just kind of settle into a default look after a while without some outside factor forcing them to change it.

10+ years is a long time. Minor changes sneaking in (e.g. Geralt's outfit gets messed up by a monster, and he finds himself unable to reproduce his outfit exactly as before, barbers are a luxury and you don't notice your self haircuts are drifting longer or shorter) is something that would have been plausible, I think.

[Keltest]

10+ years is a long time. Minor changes sneaking in (e.g. Geralt's outfit gets messed up by a monster, and he finds himself unable to reproduce his outfit exactly as before, barbers are a luxury and you don't notice your self haircuts are drifting longer or shorter) is something that would have been plausible, I think.

So theyre supposed to make a dozen or so different variants on Geralt's outfit with minimal changes done to give tiny subtle hints that his story isn't happening over the course of a week even when things like seasonal changes show up? Im not convinced that you would have noticed that even if they had done it.

[Cikomyr]

I am still wondering what was the point of the Geralt stories of first and second episodes in the overall plot

[Keltest]

I am still wondering what was the point of the Geralt stories of first and second episodes in the overall plot

The first establishes who Geralt is, what he does, and how he is perceived by people (and why). The second links him to Dandelion and introduces Elves to the setting, as well as making it pretty clear what state theyre in. The latter, in particular, is going to become important if they follow the plot of the main books in any followup seasons, since the first proper one is even titled Blood of Elves.

[Saintheart]

As for me, I'm enjoying a certain comment/joke that's coming up frequently on Youtube videos from the show:

"Nice! 60 fps, ray trace, Nvidia Hairworks looks great. I just wish the guy doing this playthrough would go keyboard and mouse rather than controller, and give us more time to read the dialogue options before he chooses one."

[crayzz]

So theyre supposed to make a dozen or so different variants on Geralt's outfit with minimal changes done to give tiny subtle hints that his story isn't happening over the course of a week even when things like seasonal changes show up? Im not convinced that you would have noticed that even if they had done it.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Theres decades between the time skips, I'm not asking for a full wardrobe change each week.

The seasonal changes also arent /that/ helpful. Its consistently winter for Ciri AFAIR, but there were a few years between Jaskier's 1st and 2nd meeting with Geralt in the series, and it was summer in both.

[Rynjin]

I dunno if you noticed, but Geralt's outfit DOES change several times.

[crayzz]

I dunno if you noticed, but Geralt's outfit DOES change several times.

It does! I pulled the "his outfit got messed up" example from the show. It's not really useful for dating, however.

Outfit changes in general also just aren't that useful for a character who mostly wears various well-detailed outfits of black and brown. You'd probably need some other costume change to work as a indication of date.

[Eldan]

Obviously, Geralt should wear more of his game outfits.

Spoiler

Show

Get some colour in there!

[Spore]

Obviously, Geralt should wear more of his game outfits.

While I agree on anything that supports visual diversity, this wouldn't really support the idea of Geralt constantly being on his last crowns.

"Hey, Mr Witcher person, why don't you sell some of your outfits when you're so strapped for cash."
"You see, that armor set right there gives me +1 to alchemy and to bomb damage. I can't possibly do that."
"Is it magical or how does that work?"
"Heck if I know. Maybe the bandoliers strap my manhood down so I don't get distracted and sweep the chemicals off the table."

[Eldan]

I think I forgot the sarcasm smiley. I also didn't manage to find any of the truly hideous witcher 3 outfits on google. But Geralt needs more striped poofy sleves and bright shiny gold boots.

[Saintheart]

Well, after having had a look at the first two episodes the feeling I've got is: not as good as Season 1 Game of Thrones, but definitely better than Season 8 Game of Thrones, so there's that.

There's a lot of expositionary speeches, which from one point of view I get since they wanted to try and get people acquainted with the world quickly, but most of the characters - bar Henry Cavill, he's got the character right on the rails already - are a little hammy for my liking, especially Stregobor and that elven outlaw leader (I think the whole "racist against elves" plotline could've used a bit more time, it appears a bit rushed to me and the confrontation between Geralt and the elven outlaw left me mostly cold unfortunately.)

I'm still enjoying it right now anyway.

[Olinser]

[LibraryOgre]

I keep singing the song as "Drop a coin on your Witcher", which is not the NOT the song.

[Imbalance]

We finally caught up to this series and enjoyed it. Any time line confusion was resolved a few eps in, having never fully experienced any of the source material. Looking forward to more.

[Dragonus45]

Sounds like what's needed is a fan edit of the 8 episodes into chronological order...

I think just properly labeling where we are in the plot as time goes on would make more sense. There is no real storytelling purpose served by having it be treated like a surprise or a twist by not mentioning stuff along the lines of X years ago or X years later in most scenes.

[BisectedBrioche]

Personally I liked the offset storylines.

It wasn't quite Baccano!, but it still felt satisfying to feel everything slide into place.

[Natteregn]

oh I watched the show!

It was fun but also confusing.

i have not interacted with the games or books at all other than the tv-show

I was waiting for Ciri and Geralt to meet, and hangout, and now I have to wait till season two.

I did not like a lot of the costumes. It was not consistence and fell a little flat to me (like compared to game of thrones that is excellent)

Also there was so many characters, there was introduced and then used episodes later, when i have forgotton them which was confusing.

i love Yennefer and how angry and unsatisfied she is.

Overall pretty good!

[PPA]

One thing that's really stuck out for me is how I've seen a lot of people complaining because of the ethnicity of the actors involved (black elves or dryads, for example, or the black guard in Cintra), and especially about the actresses playing Triss and Yennefer, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Mousesack, who looks different than in the books and games, is a mage instead of a druid, and even has a different fate in the show than in the other versions. It's strange given the insistence of most people that these complaints are because they're "not being true to the characters" and kind of give credence to there being some level of racial and sexual discrimination at the heart of the debacle, for all that they argue otherwise. Hell, I've seen people complain that in the Witcher 3 Ciri is bisexual and that just doesn't make sense for the character, when she is canonically bisexual in the book series. Fandoms are weird, I guess is my point.

[Keltest]

One thing that's really stuck out for me is how I've seen a lot of people complaining because of the ethnicity of the actors involved (black elves or dryads, for example, or the black guard in Cintra), and especially about the actresses playing Triss and Yennefer, but I haven't seen anyone complain about Mousesack, who looks different than in the books and games, is a mage instead of a druid, and even has a different fate in the show than in the other versions. It's strange given the insistence of most people that these complaints are because they're "not being true to the characters" and kind of give credence to there being some level of racial and sexual discrimination at the heart of the debacle, for all that they argue otherwise. Hell, I've seen people complain that in the Witcher 3 Ciri is bisexual and that just doesn't make sense for the character, when she is canonically bisexual in the book series. Fandoms are weird, I guess is my point.

Mousesack actually is a druid, and is mentioned as such. The actual technical differences between mages and druids largely come down to the philosophy behind their use of The Power rather than an actual different source of magic.

Also, I was annoyed that they killed him. I really liked him in the games.

[Rynjin]

I think I, at least, have been perfectly honest about my reasons for not liking their choice for Trissiny's actress.

It's because I like redheads.

[Lemmy]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love. Of course they will care more about the portrayal of more important characters than they do about the more minor ones.

Also, it's not necessarily about ethnicity, but about similarity. Mousesack is still pretty visually similar to his game incarnation, despite being a different ethnicity, while Triss is completely different. Yennefer is so so. If the actress of Triss were ethnically black, Asian or whatever, but still somehow looked liked a Polish redhead, no one would be complaining well... Some people would be complaining... There's always someone complaining. But you know what I mean).

This kind of unnecessary change is also annoying because it shows the priority of the show-runners isn't being faithful to the source material, or even making a good story.

Also, yes... Killing Mousesack was indeed a waste.

[Ramza00]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love.

Fans want multiple things, and each individual person wants a different combination of things. Being reductionist and say fans just want is a form of projection.

[Keltest]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love. Of course they will care more about the portrayal of more important characters than they do about the more minor ones.

Also, it's not necessarily about ethnicity, but about similarity. Mousesack is still pretty visually similar to his game incarnation, despite being a different ethnicity, while Triss is completely different. Yennefer is so so. If the actress of Triss were ethnically black, Asian or whatever, but still somehow looked liked a Polish redhead, no one would be complaining well... Some people would be complaining... There's always someone complaining. But you know what I mean).

This kind of unnecessary change is also annoying because it shows the priority of the show-runners isn't being faithful to the source material, or even making a good story.

Also, yes... Killing Mousesack was indeed a waste.

Um... are you aware that you just said its Ok for the actress to be black, as long as she's a white redhead?

[Morty]

It might come as a shock to some, but "Triss Merigold" isn't a Polish name, so she's not even fantasy!Polish. Nor is anyone in the Witcher-verse, which is a pretty generic European fantasy setting at the end of the day.

As far as Mousesack goes, I don't think we ever do find out what happens to him in the book series. He appears in a story taking place after the ending, but it's an explicitly non-canonical one. So neither his fate in the games (where he lives) nor in the show (where he doesn't) technically contradict anything.

[PPA]

The tired old "fandom is sexist/tirade" is dumb and has always been dumb. Fans just want adaptations to stay true to the characters they love. Of course they will care more about the portrayal of more important characters than they do about the more minor ones.

Also, it's not necessarily about ethnicity, but about similarity. Mousesack is still pretty visually similar to his game incarnation, despite being a different ethnicity, while Triss is completely different. Yennefer is so so. If the actress of Triss were ethnically black, Asian or whatever, but still somehow looked liked a Polish redhead, no one would be complaining well... Some people would be complaining... There's always someone complaining. But you know what I mean).

This kind of unnecessary change is also annoying because it shows the priority of the show-runners isn't being faithful to the source material, or even making a good story.

Also, yes... Killing Mousesack was indeed a waste.

Well, I wholeheartedly disagree with you that gender and race issues in media are dumb by definition like you want to make it seem because that's your opinion. And I also disagree that Mousesack is truer to his game version than Triss, for instance.

I only recently played the third game and it took me several quests interacting with him to realize based on what he said that he was supposed to be the same character that in the books and show is called Mousesack because they used the original Polish name, which I didn't know. That didn't happen with, say, Jaskier, who in the books and game is called Dandelion. Cahir doesn't act like book Cahir in important ways either, and people seldom complain about that.

I just find interesting that most complaints I see and hear are about the female characters, regardless of similar or bigger changes in the same show to male characters.

And yeah, you just said it's fine to cast actors from a different ethnicity as long as they look like another ethnicity, to prove that ethnicity has nothing to do with this. That's a weird argument, to say the least.