So has anyone seen it? Is it any good? How open is it to people unfamiliar with either the novels or the games?
Netflix The Witcher TV Series on Netflix
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
gral
Well-known member
What I've heard from people who watched it(including my brother, who never played the games nor read the books), is that the first episodes are confusing, because the series starts in media res. By the second half of the series, you gradually understand what's happening.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I concur, the reporting is that the first five episodes are something of a dysfunctional mess with three disjointed storylines that lack pacing, but it gets much better after that.
Grimn
Member
I didn't experience much confusion, just the realisation that "ohh these are different timelines" in episode 4 or so. I really liked it, my only complaint is that the Nilfgaardians' armor looks really stupid compared to the mostly nice looking stuff everyone else is wearing. Superman was better in the role than I expected and it feels like big well built world with swords, magic and funbags so what's not to like.
I never got into the games but now I'm tempted to try again.
I never got into the games but now I'm tempted to try again.
Shipmaster Sane
You have been weighed
Two precocious, insufferably smug little girls talking down to everyone plus a grown-up-arya was enough to sour my stomach, even if two of them got briefly bullied.
"tHeFiRsTmOnStErIeVeRkIlLeDwAsArAaAaAaApIsT"
"tHeFiRsTmOnStErIeVeRkIlLeDwAsArAaAaAaApIsT"
Soooo, having finally watched the full season, I can say I was pleasantly surprised, by and large. Geralt and Yennefer really stood out, and I have no reservations left whatsoever about Anya Chalotra, darker skin tone or not. She manages to radiate the sort of maturity that Yen should have despite the actress' young age. Jaskier I also really liked, a fact that was helped greatly by the great singing - and that he was less of a foppy annoyance than in the games.
Things that I didn't like, but which Netflix most likely can (will?) change:
Things that I didn't like, but which Netflix most likely can (will?) change:
- Nilfgard's armor. It looked less bad in motion than it did in the earlier images, but it still looks decidedly shite compared to pretty much every other armor we see on screen. I seriously hope they will retcon/improve on this to be more game-like in the 2nd season.
- Dwarfs. Use LotR scaling technology, please. Little people simply don't cut it, and this isn't "Willow" anymore, but we're entering the 2020ies now. Obviously the technology was mature twenty years ago, so make use of it.
- Random black people. Sorry, especially on the first viewing this was a major immersion breaker for me. It feels unnecessary, and is just a way to check every possible representation box on the questionaire in a setting that tackles the issue of racism brilliantly without it ever being about skin color in the first place. Vilgefortz, Yennefer, that's all somewhat acceptable as you can easily enough rationalize that one of their ancestors probably hailed from a place like Zerrakania, and with OP mages portalling around the world it's less of an issue anyhow, but every fifth person being black in even the smallest pseudo-eastern European hamlet??? One of the things that set The Witcher apart from many other settings for me was the fact that it managed to create a diverse universe that really took a mature approach to racism - and did so without the overly on-your-face American style of "every skin color must be represented, no matter what". I can't shake the feeling that the idea of non-skin color related racism is an impossibility to those producing for US audiences...
- Bollocks military tactics, or the complete lack of tactics in the first place. Really, battles would be a lot more interesting and suspenseful if writers and directors at least tried to implement something as simple as a shield wall or a pike formation. That being said, Sodden Hill was a significantly more enjoyable battle than the one at the start of the series.
Last edited:
Yeah, using human dwarves as dwarves doesnt give a great fit. It doesn't capture the burliness or the height dwarves are meant to have. Actual dwarves can be used more effectively as gnomes and half-lings which I believe are both in The Witcher
Only saw the first episode so far, watching the second one right now.
It's pretty decent. Kinda hard to follow... but not impossible. The main drawback is the accents and seeing how all of the disjointed storylines will tie together. It's pretty good overall but definitely could be better so far. I like the characters so far, very likable and the line. It does dump quite a bit of explaining right off the bat as well in dialogue.
The worst part of the show is that whenever a Black person shows up onscreen my partner exclaims "Wow! That must be Yennefer!"
I mean seriously... it's only been Black guys that appeared so far. Then again... it's the 21st century. Don't wanna assume.
It's pretty decent. Kinda hard to follow... but not impossible. The main drawback is the accents and seeing how all of the disjointed storylines will tie together. It's pretty good overall but definitely could be better so far. I like the characters so far, very likable and the line. It does dump quite a bit of explaining right off the bat as well in dialogue.
The worst part of the show is that whenever a Black person shows up onscreen my partner exclaims "Wow! That must be Yennefer!"
I mean seriously... it's only been Black guys that appeared so far. Then again... it's the 21st century. Don't wanna assume.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Caught the first two episodes thanks to the wonder of friends with Netflix once again (mooching off others--the gift that keeps on giving in the age of 12+ streaming services!). I got the impression that I'd have been more lost without the game backing me up on who was who and a vague sentiment of the world (though maybe that's just a slow-burn? Couldn't say), but it seemed like the 'tone' was fitting with its whole monster/person-killing, disfigured Yennefer, elf-terrorists, failure in battle, and little girl that slaughtered a dog for money. Seemed very much 'Witcher'-y. Not sure if I'm overly impressed enough to make a point of going back for more, though...
It was above average... for Netflix.
My one issue is that it took them a few episodes to make it clear that the timeline wasn't consistent.
Oh, that and the immersion breaking point of having Jaskier not age. Geralt and the various magic users have the canonical explanation of aging very slowly (if at all), but Jaskier is just a regular human.
Despite this he was looking the same before Ciri was born (and old enough to get known at the Court for cuckolding royalty) as he did immediately before the start of Ciri's story line. The same applies to most of the regular humans who appear in multiple parts of the story line.
It also continues the Netflix tradition of needing subtitles turned on because they consistently fuck up the audio balance of voice, music, and background noise.
My one issue is that it took them a few episodes to make it clear that the timeline wasn't consistent.
Oh, that and the immersion breaking point of having Jaskier not age. Geralt and the various magic users have the canonical explanation of aging very slowly (if at all), but Jaskier is just a regular human.
Despite this he was looking the same before Ciri was born (and old enough to get known at the Court for cuckolding royalty) as he did immediately before the start of Ciri's story line. The same applies to most of the regular humans who appear in multiple parts of the story line.
It also continues the Netflix tradition of needing subtitles turned on because they consistently fuck up the audio balance of voice, music, and background noise.
The only guy they bothered aging was Mousesack.
Who is a magic user and thus could reasonably be kept unaging given the setting.
After having fired up The Witcher 3 again to start a new playthrough, and while I’m still working on a full color map of the northern kingdoms for fun, I felt it was time to revisit my earlier statements about Netflix‘ The Witcher. I’m going to call it Netflix The Witcher: It’s Really Not That Good Afterall.
You might be surprised in the change of judgement of the series. After all, my earlier short review summed my feelings up as "I was pleasantly surprised, by and large". Why the change then now? Broadly speaking, it’s because the series doesn’t hold up when compared to the 3rd game. Although that’s not all there is to critique. The series has plenty of shortcomings, most if not all of which could have been easily avoided. I believe the sole reason – aside from the hype and expectations generated prior to its launch – that Netflix‘ The Witcher has become a success is due to its two leads, Henry Cavill and Anya Chalotra. Cavill’s performance as Geralt pretty much nails the grumpy, calm witcher with a dry sense of humor that I have come to love from the games. Chalotra, while visually far from the appearance that I would have preferred for the role (that being someone looking like Kate Beckinsale ca. 2005, a sultry woman in her prime) probably gave the stand-out performance of the first season. Another surprising performance was given for the role of Jaskier, the travelling bard that becomes Geralt’s unlikely but lasting friend. In fact, I liked him better than in the games. There he far too often is just a foppish annoyance where we’re told that he’s Geralt‘s friend. In Netflix‘ series we are actually shown that friendship. It is one of the few times where the series proves to be better than the offerings of CD Projekt Red from 2015 and 2016.
Much has been said prior to release that the series would be based on the short stories and books rather than on the games, especially the superb (and in my opinion, superior, 3rd game). The reasons for this are manyfold – greed, copyright, and others – but they still ring hollow. There simply would not have been this series had it not been for The Witcher 3 being one of the most highly praised and successful games of all time. I’ve gone on record on other occasions that I believe the creators of the show made a huge mistake in not emulating the visual style and mood of TW 3. These would have been the things the most easily relatable points to really bridge the gap between the two mediums. But Netflix’s series has deeper problems. Like its lack of ability to establish that sort of overarching mood and style at all.
Simply put, Netflix’s worldbuilding sucks. That’s the first big point of criticism. Part of this comes down to the narrative structure Lauren S. Hissrich chose fort he series, trying to be all that clever by mixing several timelines into one offering without making it clear early on which was which. This sort of non-linear storytelling isn’t bad per se. If you have a closed narrative in, say, a two hour movie, and if you have a competent writer or team of writers, you can create something that might get you on the Oscar shortlist for best script. If.
If not, you get Netflix. By trying to be clever Netflix‘ The Witcher wastes screentime it can’t afford to waste, and concentrates on issues that aren’t all that relevant fort he narrative as it is. A more linear approach would have been so much better for all involved factors. It would have allowed for a better means to establish the characters of Geralt, Yennefer and Jaskier and there progression vis-a-vis. It would also have allowed for a much needed condensation of Cirilla’s storyline in season one, which by and large felt like nothing but a means to pad out subpar scripts. What happened to her could just as well have been put into focus in episode six and seven, had it been played chronologically. By then the world and its players would have been solidly established.
A simple map of The Witcher. I'm sure Netflix could have done something better and more instructive.
Yet, by throwing two, sometimes three timelines into fifty minute episodes you end up with a subpar back-and-forth that doesn’t allow for much in the way of establishing the world you’re setting your story in. Netflix‘ series gives you zero sense of scale, of distance. Where is Geralt now? Where ist hat place in relation to the last place we’ve seen him? Who are the players at work there? Which kingdom and realm is where, and how does this affect the story and universe? The games come with some really good maps, and you can find others online. Other successful fantasy series use maps to great effect. Game of Thrones‘ changing intro sequences come to mind, but even Lord of the Rings is famous for its map. And even when there are no maps accompanying the stories, the Conan tales by Robert E. Howard more often than not give good descriptions as to where in its fictonal setting they take place in relation to established fix points (that often being Aquilonia). With the Netflix series we get very few establishing shots that would help the viewer orientate themselves. And the ones we do get are often cringeworthy. When Geralt rides to Temeria to rid King Foltest’s incest-born daughter of her curse, we get all of two shots establishing this one oft he larger northern realms: one blurry vista with a castle on a hill behind a forest in the distance that looks so shitty even someone untrained in photo manipulation could have done it in Photoshop in about an hour, and another one that looks like it was filmed in a quarry at night. Where’s the vast Temerian countryside with its ruins, brick-and-wood-houses and-reed-covered villages? Where’s the grand city of Vizima, the temples, the mills and lively streets and roads? Nowhere to be found. Geralt is on the road, then he’s in the king’s castle, then he’s in the stryga’s lair.
The same is true for basically every other situation in the series. Yennefer of Vengerberg. Vengerberg is in Aedirn, whose king she wants to advise. Where’s Aedirn? Where’s Aedirn, say, in relation to Arethuza, or Temeria? We get no idea. Where’s Cintra in relation to all of this? Where’s Nilfgaard? We’re never shown. We’re not even told (which I could have settled for, even if ‚show, don’t tell‘ generally is the more elegant approach). Show Cintra with the pass leading into the country suggests a location akin to southern Spain. Yet, both from maps and the established lore, Cintra is more likely sitting around the same latitude as northern France, with Nilfgaard being southern Spain!
And since distance and relations are never established you end up without a frame of reference for both, locations and the passing of time. Which, in turn, leads to narrative choices that are less than ideal. In the games (and the novels, ironically), Nilfgaard is a vast Empire already at the start of the tales. Vast, but distant enough that neither the Lodge of Sorceresses nor the northern realms knew much about it. Fringilla Vigo would not have studied at Arethuza. She was trained in Nilfgaard. The writers‘ choice to turn Nilfgaard into some backwater run-down kingdom suddenly rising up in religious fervor baffles me. It takes all that is interesting about Nilfgaard and throws it on a trash heap. Which is all the more infuriating as the empire’s traits make such great counterpoints to the situation of the northern realms: in the North, the Lodge basically makes the states serve the lodge’s interests. In Nilfgaard, mages are regulated servants in service of the state fort he common good (well, for reasons of state, really, but they aren’t unchecked megalomaniacs like in the north). Nilfgaard is Renaissance compared to the feudal north. Nilfgaard has a strict policy of tolerance towards non-humans whereas they are persecuted in the North. And at the same time Nilfgaard is a nigh-genocidal aggressor.
Especially the aspect on non-human tolerance is something I’m quite baffled wasn’t picked up on by the more than cringeworthy woke writers‘ room that Lauren S. Hissrich put together. As is racism as a whole. Sure, we get Philevandrel and Toruviel ranting about how they’ve been displaced and their people persecuted. But at the same time we have a (black!) elf in Renfri’s gang, we have dwarves roaming around; yet again we are told something, but not shown. Would it really have been that hard to spend thirty seconds or two minutes in an episode to establish the anti- elder races sentiment by, you know, actually showing it? TW 3 did a stellar job of showing not only the ravages of war, but also the progroms against other races and the general racist sentiments thrown around between all parties, and it didn‘t need to try hard for it.
Toruviel: Polish series, Games, Netflix
Overall the handling of the non-humans races – and of race in general – leaves a lot to be desired in Netflix’s Witcher series. To give a simple summary, non-humans are a narrative foil to handle the topic of racism, and taking The Witcher 3 as a benchmark, that part of the narrative can be tackled superbly well. Neither the games nor the series has any need for racial representation as the issue is handled using in-universe mechanisms. And yet we get black elves and black peasants in clearly northern European settings, we have half-Asians (by the looks of it) in the form of Toruviel, black Fringilla and black Cintran knights, middle-Eastern Vilgefortz (him losing to Cahir is just another cringeworthy point)… You couldn’t make something more immersion-breaking for me if you tried! And it’s so incredibly unnecessary! Why, I keep asking myself, why do this if there’s no narrative need for it?!? Yes, I know the political/woke answer, but even then I can’t help but wonder if those writers ever stopped a moment and pondered whether what they did actually made sense, made the overall consistency better?!?
And then you get dwarves played by little people. I think I actually laughed out loud when I first saw this on screen. Twenty years after The Lord of the Rings pioneered the technology of CGI-shrinking for dwarves and hobbits, and Netflix takes little people. Mind, it’s to play roles of The Witcherverse dwarves which, quite honestly, are classic LotR/DnD dwarves: 300 lbs. heavy-set blokes with mountains of muscles and thick bones and a knack for fighting and armor. And we get… this:
Why? Why, you cheapscates. And, while we’re at it, why does so much of this series look so utterly cheap!?! Netflix spent 10 million per episode on the first season. To put this into perspective, I could have bought my six bedroom house forty times for one episode of The Witcher, and there I would actually have been able to see the value! Where did all that money go to? Cavill’s protein shakes? You don’t have actual „fantasy“ dwarves. You have something like three elves or so and a bunch of „dryads“ that’s just ethnic women in jungle garb, Your CGI dragon looks worse than half the monsters in TW3 even without the HD mods. Your CGI battle scene looks like uninspired shite. Your „reavers“ are blokes in leather pants and white shirts, and your Nilfgaardians look like they are clad in their own shrivelled foreskins. Even the Cintrans look cheap when you really take a look at them. You have barely any grand shots establishing the fantasy world worth the money. You have no large and expensive urban sets, you barely have any countryside/village sets. Most outside scenes happen away from any kind of elaborate structure. So, where did all that money go to? Explain it to me, please!
Really, the more a think about it and the more I play TW3 again, the more the experience of having watched the series is soured, and the more rambling I get. So I’ll stop here. I’ll still watch the 2nd season once it airs (since I get Netflix basically for free), but I really don’t have any high hopes for it.
You might be surprised in the change of judgement of the series. After all, my earlier short review summed my feelings up as "I was pleasantly surprised, by and large". Why the change then now? Broadly speaking, it’s because the series doesn’t hold up when compared to the 3rd game. Although that’s not all there is to critique. The series has plenty of shortcomings, most if not all of which could have been easily avoided. I believe the sole reason – aside from the hype and expectations generated prior to its launch – that Netflix‘ The Witcher has become a success is due to its two leads, Henry Cavill and Anya Chalotra. Cavill’s performance as Geralt pretty much nails the grumpy, calm witcher with a dry sense of humor that I have come to love from the games. Chalotra, while visually far from the appearance that I would have preferred for the role (that being someone looking like Kate Beckinsale ca. 2005, a sultry woman in her prime) probably gave the stand-out performance of the first season. Another surprising performance was given for the role of Jaskier, the travelling bard that becomes Geralt’s unlikely but lasting friend. In fact, I liked him better than in the games. There he far too often is just a foppish annoyance where we’re told that he’s Geralt‘s friend. In Netflix‘ series we are actually shown that friendship. It is one of the few times where the series proves to be better than the offerings of CD Projekt Red from 2015 and 2016.
Much has been said prior to release that the series would be based on the short stories and books rather than on the games, especially the superb (and in my opinion, superior, 3rd game). The reasons for this are manyfold – greed, copyright, and others – but they still ring hollow. There simply would not have been this series had it not been for The Witcher 3 being one of the most highly praised and successful games of all time. I’ve gone on record on other occasions that I believe the creators of the show made a huge mistake in not emulating the visual style and mood of TW 3. These would have been the things the most easily relatable points to really bridge the gap between the two mediums. But Netflix’s series has deeper problems. Like its lack of ability to establish that sort of overarching mood and style at all.
Simply put, Netflix’s worldbuilding sucks. That’s the first big point of criticism. Part of this comes down to the narrative structure Lauren S. Hissrich chose fort he series, trying to be all that clever by mixing several timelines into one offering without making it clear early on which was which. This sort of non-linear storytelling isn’t bad per se. If you have a closed narrative in, say, a two hour movie, and if you have a competent writer or team of writers, you can create something that might get you on the Oscar shortlist for best script. If.
If not, you get Netflix. By trying to be clever Netflix‘ The Witcher wastes screentime it can’t afford to waste, and concentrates on issues that aren’t all that relevant fort he narrative as it is. A more linear approach would have been so much better for all involved factors. It would have allowed for a better means to establish the characters of Geralt, Yennefer and Jaskier and there progression vis-a-vis. It would also have allowed for a much needed condensation of Cirilla’s storyline in season one, which by and large felt like nothing but a means to pad out subpar scripts. What happened to her could just as well have been put into focus in episode six and seven, had it been played chronologically. By then the world and its players would have been solidly established.
A simple map of The Witcher. I'm sure Netflix could have done something better and more instructive.
Yet, by throwing two, sometimes three timelines into fifty minute episodes you end up with a subpar back-and-forth that doesn’t allow for much in the way of establishing the world you’re setting your story in. Netflix‘ series gives you zero sense of scale, of distance. Where is Geralt now? Where ist hat place in relation to the last place we’ve seen him? Who are the players at work there? Which kingdom and realm is where, and how does this affect the story and universe? The games come with some really good maps, and you can find others online. Other successful fantasy series use maps to great effect. Game of Thrones‘ changing intro sequences come to mind, but even Lord of the Rings is famous for its map. And even when there are no maps accompanying the stories, the Conan tales by Robert E. Howard more often than not give good descriptions as to where in its fictonal setting they take place in relation to established fix points (that often being Aquilonia). With the Netflix series we get very few establishing shots that would help the viewer orientate themselves. And the ones we do get are often cringeworthy. When Geralt rides to Temeria to rid King Foltest’s incest-born daughter of her curse, we get all of two shots establishing this one oft he larger northern realms: one blurry vista with a castle on a hill behind a forest in the distance that looks so shitty even someone untrained in photo manipulation could have done it in Photoshop in about an hour, and another one that looks like it was filmed in a quarry at night. Where’s the vast Temerian countryside with its ruins, brick-and-wood-houses and-reed-covered villages? Where’s the grand city of Vizima, the temples, the mills and lively streets and roads? Nowhere to be found. Geralt is on the road, then he’s in the king’s castle, then he’s in the stryga’s lair.
The same is true for basically every other situation in the series. Yennefer of Vengerberg. Vengerberg is in Aedirn, whose king she wants to advise. Where’s Aedirn? Where’s Aedirn, say, in relation to Arethuza, or Temeria? We get no idea. Where’s Cintra in relation to all of this? Where’s Nilfgaard? We’re never shown. We’re not even told (which I could have settled for, even if ‚show, don’t tell‘ generally is the more elegant approach). Show Cintra with the pass leading into the country suggests a location akin to southern Spain. Yet, both from maps and the established lore, Cintra is more likely sitting around the same latitude as northern France, with Nilfgaard being southern Spain!
And since distance and relations are never established you end up without a frame of reference for both, locations and the passing of time. Which, in turn, leads to narrative choices that are less than ideal. In the games (and the novels, ironically), Nilfgaard is a vast Empire already at the start of the tales. Vast, but distant enough that neither the Lodge of Sorceresses nor the northern realms knew much about it. Fringilla Vigo would not have studied at Arethuza. She was trained in Nilfgaard. The writers‘ choice to turn Nilfgaard into some backwater run-down kingdom suddenly rising up in religious fervor baffles me. It takes all that is interesting about Nilfgaard and throws it on a trash heap. Which is all the more infuriating as the empire’s traits make such great counterpoints to the situation of the northern realms: in the North, the Lodge basically makes the states serve the lodge’s interests. In Nilfgaard, mages are regulated servants in service of the state fort he common good (well, for reasons of state, really, but they aren’t unchecked megalomaniacs like in the north). Nilfgaard is Renaissance compared to the feudal north. Nilfgaard has a strict policy of tolerance towards non-humans whereas they are persecuted in the North. And at the same time Nilfgaard is a nigh-genocidal aggressor.
Especially the aspect on non-human tolerance is something I’m quite baffled wasn’t picked up on by the more than cringeworthy woke writers‘ room that Lauren S. Hissrich put together. As is racism as a whole. Sure, we get Philevandrel and Toruviel ranting about how they’ve been displaced and their people persecuted. But at the same time we have a (black!) elf in Renfri’s gang, we have dwarves roaming around; yet again we are told something, but not shown. Would it really have been that hard to spend thirty seconds or two minutes in an episode to establish the anti- elder races sentiment by, you know, actually showing it? TW 3 did a stellar job of showing not only the ravages of war, but also the progroms against other races and the general racist sentiments thrown around between all parties, and it didn‘t need to try hard for it.
Toruviel: Polish series, Games, Netflix
Overall the handling of the non-humans races – and of race in general – leaves a lot to be desired in Netflix’s Witcher series. To give a simple summary, non-humans are a narrative foil to handle the topic of racism, and taking The Witcher 3 as a benchmark, that part of the narrative can be tackled superbly well. Neither the games nor the series has any need for racial representation as the issue is handled using in-universe mechanisms. And yet we get black elves and black peasants in clearly northern European settings, we have half-Asians (by the looks of it) in the form of Toruviel, black Fringilla and black Cintran knights, middle-Eastern Vilgefortz (him losing to Cahir is just another cringeworthy point)… You couldn’t make something more immersion-breaking for me if you tried! And it’s so incredibly unnecessary! Why, I keep asking myself, why do this if there’s no narrative need for it?!? Yes, I know the political/woke answer, but even then I can’t help but wonder if those writers ever stopped a moment and pondered whether what they did actually made sense, made the overall consistency better?!?
And then you get dwarves played by little people. I think I actually laughed out loud when I first saw this on screen. Twenty years after The Lord of the Rings pioneered the technology of CGI-shrinking for dwarves and hobbits, and Netflix takes little people. Mind, it’s to play roles of The Witcherverse dwarves which, quite honestly, are classic LotR/DnD dwarves: 300 lbs. heavy-set blokes with mountains of muscles and thick bones and a knack for fighting and armor. And we get… this:
Why? Why, you cheapscates. And, while we’re at it, why does so much of this series look so utterly cheap!?! Netflix spent 10 million per episode on the first season. To put this into perspective, I could have bought my six bedroom house forty times for one episode of The Witcher, and there I would actually have been able to see the value! Where did all that money go to? Cavill’s protein shakes? You don’t have actual „fantasy“ dwarves. You have something like three elves or so and a bunch of „dryads“ that’s just ethnic women in jungle garb, Your CGI dragon looks worse than half the monsters in TW3 even without the HD mods. Your CGI battle scene looks like uninspired shite. Your „reavers“ are blokes in leather pants and white shirts, and your Nilfgaardians look like they are clad in their own shrivelled foreskins. Even the Cintrans look cheap when you really take a look at them. You have barely any grand shots establishing the fantasy world worth the money. You have no large and expensive urban sets, you barely have any countryside/village sets. Most outside scenes happen away from any kind of elaborate structure. So, where did all that money go to? Explain it to me, please!
Really, the more a think about it and the more I play TW3 again, the more the experience of having watched the series is soured, and the more rambling I get. So I’ll stop here. I’ll still watch the 2nd season once it airs (since I get Netflix basically for free), but I really don’t have any high hopes for it.
TV News: Witcher, God, Angels, Image, Promos - Dark Horizons
The Witcher Following photos of Henry Cavill’s Geralt and Freya Allan’s Ciri earlier this week, new images have arrived of Anya Chalotra as sorceress Yennefer of Vengerberg in the second season of Netflix’s “The Witcher” fantasy series. The photos seemingly confirm Yennefer survives the Battle...
www.darkhorizons.com
Some New promotional stuff regarding Season Two to bump the thread with.
Yeah, I found the show when I was watching it immensely frustrating. It was obvious they were working from very good stories, but the way they desided to film it made it so weird and made everything take longer than it needed, giving everything this weird slow and plodding and overly rushed.
I think the best example of it is the whole, whatever the name of the girl is. If they did it in chronological order, there would have been time to build up that relationship on both ends, so that it ends up being meaningful. Instead, the way they did it, everything with the girl basically felt like filler and a distraction from the real story of yenniffer at the Mage college, or the Witcher's ansk over the girl he had to kill in the first episode.
To find out the girl and Geralt is actually supposed to be the main story, and that relationship is going to be the main core of the show! But that whole relationship was basically treated as a C plot, and filled with, well, filler filled with all these charcters they have to introduce (the black elf, the mage user, the helpful woman, the noble family) who took up so much time in the show, but were absolutely pointless!
Like, if they wanted to focus on Geralt and the witch for the first season, then, I don't know, start with the opening scene being the wedding, so we know that there's something set up, but then just focus on him monster hunting and yennifer, and then bring the girl in in the last 3 episodes to set up the next season once were fully sold on the witcher and witch.
Instead, by trying to tell all at the same time, you need to pump up filler into at least 1, maybe 2 of the stories in order so they all have screen time to match everything up, but at the same time each one but Yennifer feels like it had to be cut back and rushed to make room in each episode for the other 3 plot lines.
To find out the girl and Geralt is actually supposed to be the main story, and that relationship is going to be the main core of the show! But that whole relationship was basically treated as a C plot, and filled with, well, filler filled with all these charcters they have to introduce (the black elf, the mage user, the helpful woman, the noble family) who took up so much time in the show, but were absolutely pointless!
Like, if they wanted to focus on Geralt and the witch for the first season, then, I don't know, start with the opening scene being the wedding, so we know that there's something set up, but then just focus on him monster hunting and yennifer, and then bring the girl in in the last 3 episodes to set up the next season once were fully sold on the witcher and witch.
Instead, by trying to tell all at the same time, you need to pump up filler into at least 1, maybe 2 of the stories in order so they all have screen time to match everything up, but at the same time each one but Yennifer feels like it had to be cut back and rushed to make room in each episode for the other 3 plot lines.
The Witcher's Henry Cavill has been injured filming the second season
Henry Cavill has reportedly been injured on the set for The Witcher.The Sun reports that Cavill has been advised to res…
www.eurogamer.net
Apparently he was injured while in a harness, twenty feet up in the air, amongst the trees, whilst swinging axes about.
Which sounds pretty metal to be honest.
As is, whatever injury he did sustain, it apparently didn't even require an ambulance to show up. He apparently injured his leg after it struck an object or through muscle strain and thus unfortunately it impaired (no pun intended) the filming schedule due to scenes where his leg injury would've hampered him moving about in heavy armor. This is the latest in a series of development delays in the second season of the show with the three prior delays all being related to the ongoing WuFlu pandemic mucking things up.
There's an expanded cast light for Season Two of The Witcher.
www.darkhorizons.com
That's a lot of names I don't recognize from televisions shows and movies I didn't watch... or in the case of The Hobbit... ya know... it wasn't the greatest...
Seven More Join "The Witcher" S2 - Dark Horizons
Seven additional cast members have signed on for the second season of Netflix’s fantasy drama “The Witcher” in some key roles from Andrzej Sapkowski’s novel series and their popular game adaptations. Adjoa Andoh (“Bridgerton,” “Doctor Who”) plays Nenneke, priestess head of the Temple of...
www.darkhorizons.com
Dark Horizons said:
That's a lot of names I don't recognize from televisions shows and movies I didn't watch... or in the case of The Hobbit... ya know... it wasn't the greatest...
