Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Pliskin

  • Rank
    Hodor ?
  • Birthday 01/31/1990

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,019 profile views
  1. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    Yeah, well, they're the guys I was mentioning. They just delivered the cinematics they were ordered. They didn't really work on the games. I don't think Sapkowski would even accept to work with those (protective as he is of his writing). And maybe you should have read the whole post... No need for pointless remarks in a thread already bloated with superfluous discussions and repetitions I think. I must be honest: it's frankly getting tiresome. I don't understand the need to always repeat these facts and belittle the books reach. We all know the status of the games. They're still irrelevant when adapting the books. And I'd rather not have the books marketing based on the games success. We all hate the GoT covers of ASoIaF books. Should we start liking them now too, just because the show is successful? Should it be forbidden to say that the show is not canon? That is pretty much all the author said about the games that was even remotely negative (he even praised the games actually, while saying that they do their own thing). And the butt-hurt fans of the games started hating him for it. And then suddenly, everyone started taking the fans recollections of what the author said as the truth. Amazing process. Even his ridiculous stance about sales is not that ridiculous when you put it in the Polish (and neighboring) context. Shitting on Sapkowski is becoming the new "GRRM is not writing anything". Can't we just discuss what we would like for the adaptation without going meta? And frankly, I think the books are nowhere near as good as ASoIaF for the drama to be worth it.
  2. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    You can do that easily with any actor. Not seeing your point here. That white hair/beard/bad ass look is from the books, you know. The games are pretty faithful to the books.
  3. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    Can you say more about who's involved from the games? I thought it was just the guy(s) who did some cutscenes and cinematic trailers, not people who worked on or wrote for the actual games. How can you have the cast look like the videogame anyway if it's live action? If you mean just vaguely similar to the look of the games, then if they follow the books, it will be similar to the games anyway. Since the games are based on it... I find your remark quite odd.
  4. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    Maybe I should have said "marryable" instead of marrying, but I don't think that's correct English. Just a side remark: can we stop bringing the games as arguments at every occasion? I know, the games are what the large majority knows. I know, the games are what introduced almost everyone worldwide to The Witcher. But they're still completely irrelevant: it's an independent adaption of the books. The games do not matter. Back to the real topic, yes, it is problematic. But let's not obsess over the actual age (20 vs 30), doesn't really matter as I said countless times. It's just looks. And the problematic thing is that's a very young look. Somehow, the archetype of seduction for men and women, in the Witcher world at least, is how I presented it. Now, if you're saying it is/was not true in ours, that's an other debate, and I frankly have no opinion on it and do not wish to discuss it. Also, Happy New Year.
  5. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    Yeah, I think I gave in my first posts the impression that the actual actor's age was important. I tried to correct that in my answer to Wert. Really, what I'm saying is important is just the look. And some actors believably portray teen or early twenty characters even in their near thirties.
  6. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    Well, I thought I did, I'm sorry if I failed. Not sure what I can add, other than realizing that Geralt is somehow of a pedo by modern standards, while reading Jaskier/Dandelion's sarcasm, deeply disturbed me. It's as important to keep as, let's say, girls marrying as soon as they're ready to bear children in medieval settings. It may be a detail, and we're probably discussing more than it should, but important nonetheless for authenticity.
  7. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    It's an important part of the sorceresses attitude (free women preying and controlling men or other women) and superficiality. The books make the point that whoever is in power will abuse it in the way that suits them best. And the sorceresses are the only women (save royalty I guess) in that position in that kind of world. The mages choose what they deem the most convenient (i.e. attractive) appearance for each gender. And that happens to be very young looking women for the sorceresses. The male mages on the other hand prefer to look much older and mature. This hypocrisy of the world when it comes to genders is important to keep and not tone down, I think. But you may not agree with me, and that's fine.
  8. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    I frankly do not even differentiate between mid and early twenty. Teen shows almost always cast teen looking mid twenty actors anyway. And did someone complain and find it weird that a 25 years old (or so) actress played a 15 years old or so TV Daenerys? Nope. It was believable enough. And they had her have sex with Drogo, didn't stir that much of an outrage. Like the character, the actress just has to look like young. And that's important for the setting and the sorceresses way of life. It's glossed over in the games (but frankly, in games, 2D or 3D, the only possible distinction is between young and wrinkled, so...), but in the books, it's a pretty important point. The exact age of the actress on the other hand is irrelevant. As for experienced actors, I don't think GoT had to cast any significant names for its young (and main) characters: Jon, Dany, etc.
  9. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    But that's precisely the kind of things addressed on the twitter thread you linked. Given that she's saying nothing will be toned down and that it will stay true to the medieval context, I tend to believe they might cast early twenty actresses. And I don't see why not. The sexualized storyline of Ciri is a much bigger issue. I really don't know how they will handle it. But GoT got away with it pretty well, by aging up the characters just a bit.
  10. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    No, that's a misconception from the games. Yennefer looks very young too. Late teen or early twenty. The male wizards basically take a middle-aged appearance (forty/fifty), while the sorceresses choose to look very young. Which is pretty much what you would expect from societal archetypes.
  11. Pliskin

    The Witcher on Netflix.

    Zack McGowan would be a dream casting. His voice alone is a perfect embodiment of the character.
  12. I can't really argue about Agents of SHIELD, it's the only one I haven't watched save the first episode. It was so bad I couldn't get past it. Funny btw how everyone immediately despised Inhumans, despite the fact that AoS started way way worse. Granted, Inhumans never really improved (at least for the first 7 episodes I could bring myself to watch). But for Netflix shows, despite some high points (the Daredevil fight scenes for instance), they mostly just forget to be... you know, fun. Superhero shows. With super powers. Too long, too slow, with the same pointless drag as in TWD. You could say something similar for Legion, but at least Legion tries to be colourful and artsy. Not just plain boring. The thing is they had a good atmosphere for the first show (Daredevil) and then they just applied it to all their shows, without once wondering does it work in that case? No, it doesn't always. One season like this is enough. The Gifted is what a Marvel TV show ought to be. Cool super powers, with an engaging enough story and characters. The only comparable show is Inhumans if it wasn't bad, and Heroes (if it didn't become bad).
  13. Pliskin

    Shows that said goodbye in 2017

    Still mad about Quarry (so much potential and setup for later seasons, it was really just an introduction, the guy doesn't even know that he has a revenge plot coming and against who, even though the viewer knows) and Dark Matter (the next two seasons would have been amazing). You can add Sense8 to the list I guess, even though we got a special finale coming in 2018. What do you mean wrap things up? If there was a season 3/4, it would have been a different era and characters. The Thackery arc was over. Two of the greatest shows ever made. Despite all my efforts, I couldn't get into this show. I watched the first few episodes of season 1 and... it was just boringly uninteresting with either bland or caricatural characters. But maybe I'm just biased with the setting that I consider the least interesting in History.
  14. They don't say he's involved, they just said "it's not about him" when asked to confirm he's not in season 4. Which may allude to a cameo or a small role, or may not. We don't know. Given Pedro Pascal's comments on social media, I think he's not at all involved. But again, he may be playing his fans.
  15. Pliskin


    Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress, if you don't mind a pure villainy villain (some people are apparently allergic to it...). It's like SnowPiercer mixed with Attach on Titan and some zombies.