The Witcher on Netflix 2: Man of steel and silver

[divica]

3 hours ago, Spockydog said:

You've all lost your minds. It's appalling.

I have to agree. I really wanted to like this show but it is a huge mess.

They mess with the timeline 2/3 times… We have no idea when events are happening.

Then most of the series feels like the misadventures of geralt with lots of stuff happening of screen and him not having a goal for most of the show. He is just doing random shit.

And don t get me started on his hollier than you speaches and emo crap. He literally tries to give moral lessons to everybody that he meets!!!

[Martini Sigil]

I just finished the second episode, I wanted to murder that bard with his mandolin and deep fry his tongue... his dialogue reminded me of 80's fantasy flicks where they needed to force comedy relief into the story... I really hope that he gets less douchey, or dies hilariously. 

[Trigger Warning]

I'm not usually fussed about realism but I think I'm done with battles in TV shows, they always end up looking so ridiculous and cheap on their generically plain CGI landscapes that I'd rather it happen off screen, absolutely takes me out of the moment. 

[Corvinus85]

Finished episode 2. Each storyline has enjoyable stuff and some less so. But my main questions are

Spoiler

Why are the storylines so far detached? If I didn't have a modicum of info about the characters, I'd wondered what was the point of Yennifer right now. In a different show, we would have gotten introduced to Yennifer in a different manner, where she got to interact with one of the other main characters at that point, and then gotten a character-centric episode exploring her background. I suppose I shouldn't fault them for trying to change up the formula, but it may not work quite that well.

The elves do look unimaginative - will there ever be a fantasy where the elves will look otherworldly? The Elder Scrolls has more interesting looking elves.

Why did Geralt's armor change from episode 1 to 2?

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 hours ago, AncalagonTheBlack said:

On episode 5, loving it.Nothing to whine or complain about so far.Very enjoyable, with some great moments in almost all 5 episodes that i've watched so far. 

I have no issues with how the episodes/show is structured.It's almost takes me back to the feeling of reading the short stories.

Me too. It feels very much like the books. 

 

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

Finished episode 2. Each storyline has enjoyable stuff and some less so. But my main questions are

  Reveal hidden contents

Why are the storylines so far detached? If I didn't have a modicum of info about the characters, I'd wondered what was the point of Yennifer right now. In a different show, we would have gotten introduced to Yennifer in a different manner, where she got to interact with one of the other main characters at that point, and then gotten a character-centric episode exploring her background. I suppose I shouldn't fault them for trying to change up the formula, but it may not work quite that well.

The elves do look unimaginative - will there ever be a fantasy where the elves will look otherworldly? The Elder Scrolls has more interesting looking elves.

Why did Geralt's armor change from episode 1 to 2?

 

I will not spoil the books in my answers, just FYI (I know you haven't read them):

Spoiler

The stories were very detached in the book as well, generally speaking. That was part of their style, I think. The showrunners have definitely messed with the timeline a bit, but that said, Sapkowski was pretty abstract in his world building. He never officially published a map of this world, so often when events were happening like in the first episode (Geralt and Ciri) it was jarring. How far apart were they? Where were they? He explained it, but I bet the way a lot of viewers felt with the first episode are similar to how readers felt diving into the stories.

One thing about the first episode I wish had been brought out more:

Spoiler

Renfri, in the short story, was a twisted version of Snow White, and her followers were the dwarves. I wonder why the writers are shying away from that angle?

 

[redriver]

Seen S1 now.Enjoyable enough and I would watch S2.

Never read the source material or played the games.

Verdict; Well done high fantasy made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

14 hours ago, Ran said:

Second episode was more awkward than the first, with the intercutting of three stories instead of two, and with the Geralt story feeling thin. The Yennefer sections were intriguing, though, and I like the performances there.

Going back to the first, Linda -- who has read the short stories -- did point out something they glossed over that I think was a bit of a mistake:

  Reveal hidden contents

I did not realize that Renfri's story in "The Lesser Evil" is basically that of Snow White. They cut out pretty much everything that indicated that, which is a shame. It worked fine, but I think putting it in would have been great for viewers who put the pieces together and realized it.

 

They do it again in third episode unfortunately. I'll be vague but would be happy to discuss after you get there.

 

Also, while I love triss and her actress and even how she was included early on, this series has veered from the source material substantially at times. Much like agot, the veering makes little sense to me.

The game remain truer to the spirit but that said, Cavill is amazing and the music is definitely aping notes from the phenomenal game soundtrack. Just hire Parcival and get it over with!

[Luzifer's right hand]

I really enjoyed the first 4 episodes but I doubt that the different storylines make sense if you lack background information about the setting.

[akh]

Couldn't fall asleep thanks to my neighbors so I finished the first series. I went in with zero expectations and I think it was on the average-low side of things. How this turned out is what I am worried about for the Wheel of Time series. It looks cheap: costume design is poor, the CGI varies a lot: some of it is pure garbage, and at its best it is serviceable. The acting is also between poor and average. The worst part is the dialogue: it started poorly from very beginning with the cringe "lesser evil" talks and did not improve throughout the show. The bard indeed felt like a forced comic relief character from the 80s as someone pointed out here.

 I'm somewhat familiar with the Witcher universe so it wasn't difficult for me to follow the storylines but the way it's all put together - man there had to be a better way.

There was a lot to dislike and very little to like. Swordfight choreography was the main saving grace for me.

I will most likely watch the second series - maybe they're just trying to find their footing. I really hope this isn't what the WoT and LOTR shows end up as.

 

[Gertrude]

7 hours ago, redriver said:

Verdict; Well done high fantasy made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

I've not read the books or played the game either. I'm about 5? episodes in and it finally clicked for me that this is Xena on a better budget.

Spoiler

What kept throwing me was that Jennefer seemed to have a more involved story with character progression while Ciri and Geralt were just on an adventure each week. Honestly, Geralt's monster of the week plots were bothering me. I know he's a monster hunter - I know that's what he does, but I was expecting there to be a more cohesive through-line. I can't see the Bard as anything but Joxer now.

Also, I'm getting a bit of a sci-fi vibe from this? Is it just some of the visual choices they've made or is it supposed to be a bit ambiguous?

Not sure if that last is spoiler worthy, but I'll be safe.

[Luzifer's right hand]

24 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

I've not read the books or played the game either. I'm about 5? episodes in and it finally clicked for me that this is Xena on a better budget.

  Reveal hidden contents

What kept throwing me was that Jennefer seemed to have a more involved story with character progression while Ciri and Geralt were just on an adventure each week. Honestly, Geralt's monster of the week plots were bothering me. I know he's a monster hunter - I know that's what he does, but I was expecting there to be a more cohesive through-line. I can't see the Bard as anything but Joxer now.

Also, I'm getting a bit of a sci-fi vibe from this? Is it just some of the visual choices they've made or is it supposed to be a bit ambiguous?

Not sure if that last is spoiler worthy, but I'll be safe.

Well Xena on a better budget is not a bad thing in my eyes.  Most fantasy and SF is way too serious nowdays imho. If stuff is tongue in cheek it is much easier to ignore plot holes and unlogical things. But I never got into GoT, did not enjoy BSG and can't enjoy Star Trek Discovery apart from the fact that it has awesome special effects.

[Mark Antony]

13 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

I just finished the second episode, I wanted to murder that bard with his mandolin and deep fry his tongue... his dialogue reminded me of 80's fantasy flicks where they needed to force comedy relief into the story... I really hope that he gets less douchey, or dies hilariously. 

Ok some of the complaints I agree with but the bard is perfect. The actor is hilarious and his voice smooth as butter. Love him

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, akh said:

The worst part is the dialogue

This. The script is terrible. Fucking dreadful.

[Krishtotter]

I've watched a few of the episodes and my verdict is that its a very mixed bag, with some decent aspects and some much less so. 

Not a 'terrible' show, certainly not a 'great show' either - just passable for me, with something "lacking" compared to a few of the other modern fantasy re-makes/adaptions I've watched so far this year (i.e. Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance and His Dark Materials which I thought were both , overall, brilliant forays into the fantasy TV bidding wars). The dialogue, in particular, was often a bit sub-par imho. 

Cavil actually handled the lead role very well - as the emotionally stunted monster-hunter with flashes of nobility and chivalry - and he certainly looked the part, he has quite the physicality and charisma on screen. The actresses playing Ciri and Yennefer I thought were great as well. So the casting was strong. 

And contrary to some overly critical professional reviews, I didn't find it 'boring' in the least - it was visually interesting (even if some of the CGI didn't look realistic) and there was a lot I found "fun" about the show (i.e. well-choreographed hand-to-hand combat).

But the timeline shifts didn't work for me - I thought the narrative structure was all over the place. It didn't give me the time or ability, frankly, to properly invest myself in the plot. 

I have never read the books or played the games, so the names and events alluded to were often confusing for me. Like, the stuff in episode one with the sorcerer (Stregobar?) mentioning past lore about something called "lilith" and cursed girls...I didn't have a clue what all that was about tbh.  

The Renfri character - absolutely no idea what all the backstory brought up in her regard was about. A princess that turned evil and sadistic? That was all I really got, along with her brief love affair and then fight scene with Geralt. 

I was especially disappointed that no wider context was provided for the invasion of Cintra by Nilfgaard, even though they did the 'worldbuilding' work for other more obscure elements of the lore (as with the aforementioned 'cursed girls' thing). This entire series of events seemed to transpire much too quickly for me to have any emotional connection with the inhabitants of the besieged city.  The feast scene involving the Queen, her husband and Ciri was too expositionary in my opinion. It literally amounted to (if I may paraphrase from memory of the sequence): 

 

Royal husband: "What if the Nilfgaardians invade?"

Queen Calanthe: "Nilfgaard isn't going to invade"

Ciri: "I want to know about Nilfgaard!"

Queen Calanthe: "It doesn't matter child" 

Messenger arrives 

Queen Calanthe: "Oh, I was terribly wrong. We're all screwed - the Nilfgaardians are going to invade after all".

 

....Couldn't that sequence of events have been handled in a better way dialogue-wise and for dramatic tension, with greater emotional depth and subtlety? 

There is the kernel of a compelling and gripping epic tale in The Witcher - but the confusing presentation, timeshifts, expositionary dialogue and underdeveloped backstory (in places, with far too much over-development of lore thrown at the viewer in other regards), along with some very dodgy CGI, just didn't work as well for me as I'd been hoping from the trailers. 

That's my honest take on it.

[Zorral]

Watched some of this after the Annual Christmas Met Museum crawl.

Wot da hell?

What a mess this is!

Is that woman Geralt kills in the first episode the same character as Ciri?  According to what other people have said Renfri is a recurring character in the book series, but Renfri's only in the first episode?  Which takes place long after the rest of the episodes we see later? This is made worse by the audio mix in which whole lines turn to mush (or maybe it's only my system?).

And lordessa are the blank flatness of CGI dependent works boring.  (Also very tired of drone, above it all, shots by now, but nevermind.)  They look like formulaic theater stage sets filmed in the 1950's.)

I've never read the books etc., and I have no idea what is supposed to be going on, as with the scene of sorcerous accension.  Why are they now eels, and what are they doing? Why isn't Yennefer one of them?

It seemed to me like this at the time of the Jackson LOTR films -- if one didn't know the books very well there had to be long sequences that made no sense at all -- not to mention the stupid changes he made, like having Frodo side with Gollum against Sam, which was exactly antithetical to their relationship and Gollum's response to it -- that actually heartrending scene when the deformed hobbit sees the tenderness of Sam and Frodo together, sleeping -- and what did he do to the only friend he had?

Gads I hate that bard.  Was it Helena who said this was Xena with a bigger budget?  She's right, especially with the retelling of all these fairy tales, myths, folk lore etc.  Except that Xena did more with less -- and it wasn't male gazed like this is.  Why in the world did Yennefer's breasts have to be exposed during the entire operation that was to make her beautiful?  That was all so weird and creepy, but the whole thing pretty much is.

I do, however, very much like Henry Cavill's Geralt. Without him anchoring the series I wouldn't continue watching.  I also really like MyAnna Buring's Tissaia -- Buring played Susan in The Ripper, another of her characters that appealed greatly to this viewer.  O, and Roach.  Want. More. Roach. 

The winter scenes, and the sense of gloom, doom and heaviness -- and deep, old mystery -- one gets from scenes that have castles in them I also appreciate.

But it is, again, a true mess. So much of the mess, one senses, comes from the showrunners's messes in GOT, and though less so, still they were present in The Watchmen, depending on the watchers already knowing the material.  It's not a good move to depend on that, if quality and a larger audience is what one is shooting for.

People who don't know the previous incarnations handicapped that way quickly lose interest, or their mild interest doesn't bring them back for another season.

That is why franchises are ultimately kill present and future creative work.  That ort of dependence ultimately stifles the creative, original sizzle and spark that brings us to the work and returns us to it, to watch or re-read over and over, as with LOTR. 

That's how I see it, anyway.  Not everybody does, certainly not the industry factory!  Capitalism -- present profit and let the future worry about itself, as we devour our own tail and all our young.

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Krishtotter said:

 

The Renfri character - absolutely no idea what all the backstory brought up in her regard was about. A princess that turned evil and sadistic? That was all I really got, along with her brief love affair and then fight scene with Geralt. 

 

A book spoiler about this specific story if you're interested...

Spoiler

You should see about picking up the short story collections. The story of Renfri really felt...gutted and hollowed in the show. In the short story, she is hunted by an evil queen/stepmother who used a magical mirror that told her Renfri was trouble. So Renfri hits the road, is hunted by a Woodsman (I think), and soon starts a band of outlaws who "terrorize" the land. Oh, her band of outlaws? Dwarves. Stregobor is hired by the queen, and whether or not he's telling the truth about her cruelty and mutation is kind of up in the air. The story is really a lot more complex and the ending when the town turns on Geralt is much more powerful. This was a small town that actually liked Geralt. If he had a friend in the world, it was the local alderman, who Geralt had buddied around with a bit in the story, that tells Geralt to leave and never come back. The story is called the Lesser Evil if you can find it. I highly recommend it.

Now obviously, a lot is lacking in the show's version. The weight of Geralt's decision to fight and kill Renfri. The idea that he can't ever truly remain neutral. Oh, what else? Right. This is Snow White. Sapkowski's first book was short stories, and many of those stories were classic fairy tales told in new ways.

So they cut all that. I don't know. I kind of think had they followed the book stories and waited to introduce Yennefer later in the first season (for only one episode) then worked Yen and Ciri in during the second season, it would make much more sense and allow them to fully explore these stories.

Though it'd be very much a monster of the week type story.

 

[Corvinus85]

One positive thing is that Geralt, Yennifer and other characters prove that it shouldn't have been that hard to give the Targaryens purple eyes. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

45 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Watched some of this after the Annual Christmas Met Museum crawl.

Wot da hell?

What a mess this is!

Is that woman Geralt kills in the first episode the same character as Ciri?  According to what other people have said Renfri is a recurring character in the book series, but Renfri's only in the first episode?  Which takes place long after the rest of the episodes we see later? This is made worse by the audio mix in which whole lines turn to mush (or maybe it's only my system?).

I kind of wondered if non-book readers would think that. The way Renfri started talking about fate and the girl in the woods, or whatever. It was super confusing, even to me, who has read the books! She is not Ciri. 

Spoiler

Renfri's not a recurring character

, but it seems like this episode gutted a lot of why she's such an important encounter. I spoiler tagged a bit about that in my previous post to another poster. 

And lordessa are the blank flatness of CGI dependent works boring.  (Also very tired of drone, above it all, shots by now, but nevermind.)  They look like formulaic theater stage sets filmed in the 1950's.)

I've never read the books etc., and I have no idea what is supposed to be going on, as with the scene of sorcerous accension.  Why are they now eels, and what are they doing? Why isn't Yennifer one of them?

This is purely TV show invention. We never see Yennifer go through this in the books. She hints and talks about some of it, but most of this is...I don't know...it'd be like if Peter Jackson thought it'd be cool for us to see Frodo's life and times a few years before Bilbo leaves.

It seemed to me like this at the time of the Jackson LOTR films -- if one didn't know the books very well there had to be long sequences that made no sense at all -- not to mention the stupid changes he made, like having Frodo side with Gollum against Sam, which was exactly antithetical to their relationship and Gollum's response to it -- that actually heartrending scene when the deformed hobbit sees the tenderness of Sam and Frodo together, sleeping -- and what did he do to the only friend he had?

I think one problem is that the Witcher books are super cryptic and hard to follow anyway. Sapkowski never made a map, and time jumped around in the books (much like the show) with no clear indicator. I remember in one book, there was a final scene between two characters. In the next book, the first scene with these characters happens before the scene in the last book, and you only realize this when a third character shows up and says, "Hey, let's head to that place (where you have that big scene from the last book that hasn't happened yet)." I know this is vague, I'm trying not to be spoiler-y, but Sapkowski's writing is super cryptic. In the last book of the series, I figured out that the antagonist was a fun character from earlier in the series. I had no friggin' clue. I figured it out because someone here, in the book thread, mentioned it. I was like...wut?

Gads I hate that bard.  Was it Helena who said this was Xena with a bigger budget?  She's right, especially with the retelling of all these fairy tales, myths, folk lore etc.  Except that Xena did more with less -- and it wasn't male gazed like this is.  Why in the world did Yennefer's breasts have to be exposed during the entire operation that was to make her beautiful?  That was all so weird and creepy, but the whole thing pretty much is.

I'd say Dandilion is equally difficult to like in the book, but then, one day, he just clicks and you love him.

The breast stuff seemed too reminiscent of Game of Thrones.

I do, however, very much like Cavill's Geralt. Without him anchoring the series I wouldn't continue watching.  I also really like MyAnna Buring's Tissaia -- Buring played Susan in The Ripper, another of her characters that appealed greatly to this viewer.  O, and Roach.  Want. More. Roach. 

Agreed 100 hundred percent. Cavill is shouldering this show quite well, and he's the reason I like it. (I'm only three eps in at the moment). Also, Tissaia is excellent. I love Triss, too, by the way, who is a character game fans love. I think she is well cast, and I like her actor.

The winter scenes, and the sense of gloom, doom and heaviness -- and deep, old mystery -- one gets from scenes that have castles in them I also appreciate.

But it is, again, a true mess. So much of the mess, one senses, comes from the showrunners's messes in GOT, and though less so, still they were present in The Watchmen, depending on the watchers already knowing the material.  It's not a good move to depend on that, if quality and a larger audience is what one is shooting for.

People who don't know the previous incarnations handicapped that way quickly lose interest, or their mild interest doesn't bring them back for another season.

That is why franchises are ultimately kill present and future creative work.  That ort of dependence ultimately stifles the creative, original sizzle and spark that brings us to the work and returns us to it, to watch or re-read over and over, as with LOTR. 

That's how I see it, anyway.  Not everybody does, certainly not the industry factory!  Capitalism -- present profit and let the future worry about itself, as we devour our own tail and all our young.

I do think they messed up quite badly by adding Ciri and Yenn in from the get go. Had they followed the books, we could have gotten to understand the world and its layout as Geralt adventures around.

 

[Zorral]

10 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

 

Thank you so much! 

Spoiler

for making clear that Renfri is a one-off character -- there was so much discussion here about her casting, I assumed she was more important than she is.

I did get a kick out of the fairy tale "Princess and the Frog"

Spoiler

with the frog being a hedgehog. I figured that one out immediately.  There was nothing in in the Renfri episode that suggested Snow White though.  Then the brooch in her stepmother's ear confused me because we see this significant brooch in Geralt's hand, and then this brooch on Ciri's cloak. Argh!

However, since the showrunners had all the content already, they should have made a much more straight forward timeline, instead of starting with the end of something, whatever that something is.  Instead they made a mess that really did not need to be. Because of how they began

Spoiler

I got more and more frustrated as in the following episodes get the recurring pin and the other women recur and the destiny references recur.

 

[Trigger Warning]

This disjointed bouncing between stories years apart isn't doing anything to help me care about any of these characters and that was hard enough with the script and seriously I know this has been done to death but how on Earth did those Nilfgaard costumes get the green light.