The Witcher: Evil is Evil

[mormont]

Surprised nobody has linked the excellent Sapkowski interview about the series from io9 the other day:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-do-not-like-working-too-hard-or-too-long-a-refreshin-1841209529

Quote

 

io9: How involved were you in the production process?

Sapkowski: Not very much, on my own request. I do not like working too hard or too long. By the way, I do not like working at all. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at me.” John 8:7.

 

Quote

 

io9: What do you think translated best to screen in the show adaptation?

Sapkowski: My name appears in the credits. I cannot praise the show. It wouldn’t be decent.

io9: What do you feel didn’t successfully translate to screen in the show adaptation?

Sapkowski: I would have to be an idiot to say. My name appears in the credits.

 

Quote

 

io9: What was your reaction to learning your books were getting 500,000 reprints after the release of the Netflix show?

Sapkowski: How do you expect I answer this question? That I despaired? Shed tears? Considered suicide? No sir. My feelings were rather obvious and not excessively complex.

 

Quote

 

io9: Any additional comments?

Sapkowski: None whatsoever. Thank you.

 

[red snow]

Finished season 1 and it was ok. I think I possibly liked the show more as the various threads linked together. I have absolutely no idea why a binge release show chose the structure it did for this first season. I can understand in a weekly show how they'd like to have all three major characters present (especially if one of them has a bigger part later) but I feel like they could have just done things in a linear way. I honestly can't piece together how everything yennefer and geralt were doing in this season added to a scenario where the nilfguardians, centrins and mages wound up where they did in the final episode/battle from episode 1. That's as much down to me not caring enough as to the show being opaque, I guess.

This is particularly heightened by the fact Ciri's story is pretty pointless beyond her home being destroyed and her meeting Geralt. Everything in between seemed expendable to me. The wood elves in particular but I'm guessing that must be important later as having an episode of her "joining" only to immediately leave the following episode seemed redundant.

I thought the cast was decent. Cavill was great for what the character seems to be and I didn't really get any of the criticism that had been levelled towards him. Any flaws seemed more with Geralt and how he was used. Yennefer seemed to get the bulk of character/plot this season although I was never quite sure whether we were supposed to think of her as good or reckless/selfish and while I'm all for ambiguity in shows I got the impression the show thought it was being clear on whether I should think she was good or bad or foolish. Other than the final episode it was never that clear to me she was that powerful. I was also a bit confused by how she resented the mages for being infertile when it seemed to me that it was her own choice to be transformed at such cost? Also struck me as odd how a character that was eventually revealed to be "3 lifetimes old" hadn't bothered trying to adopt her child - it again seems sort of selfish/reckless not to have considered this as an option.

Like I said, I thought the show became more fun as things tied together and I'm hoping it's more solid in season 2 without the unnecessary mixed timelines.

[karaddin]

I've seen a lot of people that feel it's a problem for her to feel like she was cheated out of a choice when it was one that she explicitly made, but I thought it was fine. She's plucked up as a teen girl with zero self worth, who blames it all on her physical deformities and her deepest fear is that even if she were beautiful no one would love her. You offer her the chance to make herself beautiful at the cost of her fertility and it's not a meaningful choice - her decision is never in doubt.

So 3 lifetimes on, her deepest fear seems to have come to pass - her beauty doesn't seem real to her and she still isn't loved, she (selfishly) thinks that if she had a baby that would be one person that needs and loves her and she had that option removed before she was old enough to have the perspective to make that choice.

And she's not wrong, no way in hell would a girl in her situation at that age get doctors willing to perform a surgery that would render her sterile without either a life threatening medical issue or significant psychiatric assessment. And I'm someone that's against medical gatekeeping in a somewhat similar situation, but hers is clearly not compliant with our modern medical ethics.

 

On an unrelated note, on the rewatch the connections been the timelines were much clearer to me. Even in the first episode there are lines that make it clear, and much of the conversation as Calanthe is dying that I thought had been added the second time late in the season is actually included in the scene in the first episode. Ciri (and us) just lack the context to follow the conversation.

Also the illusion in the tower in ep1 is explicitly Stregobars illusion, not part of what was inherited from the previous occupant. In ep2 we hear comments in one of Yen's scenes about the curse of the blood moon that I missed on the first watch as well which clearly situates her story as earlier than Geralt in ep1.

[red snow]

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

I've seen a lot of people that feel it's a problem for her to feel like she was cheated out of a choice when it was one that she explicitly made, but I thought it was fine. She's plucked up as a teen girl with zero self worth, who blames it all on her physical deformities and her deepest fear is that even if she were beautiful no one would love her. You offer her the chance to make herself beautiful at the cost of her fertility and it's not a meaningful choice - her decision is never in doubt.

So 3 lifetimes on, her deepest fear seems to have come to pass - her beauty doesn't seem real to her and she still isn't loved, she (selfishly) thinks that if she had a baby that would be one person that needs and loves her and she had that option removed before she was old enough to have the perspective to make that choice.

And she's not wrong, no way in hell would a girl in her situation at that age get doctors willing to perform a surgery that would render her sterile without either a life threatening medical issue or significant psychiatric assessment. And I'm someone that's against medical gatekeeping in a somewhat similar situation, but hers is clearly not compliant with our modern medical ethics.

 

On an unrelated note, on the rewatch the connections been the timelines were much clearer to me. Even in the first episode there are lines that make it clear, and much of the conversation as Calanthe is dying that I thought had been added the second time late in the season is actually included in the scene in the first episode. Ciri (and us) just lack the context to follow the conversation.

Also the illusion in the tower in ep1 is explicitly Stregobars illusion, not part of what was inherited from the previous occupant. In ep2 we hear comments in one of Yen's scenes about the curse of the blood moon that I missed on the first watch as well which clearly situates her story as earlier than Geralt in ep1.

Some good points there particularly regarding her age at the time and whether she could give genuine consent. I guess there could also be an argument as to whether that was the only price that could be paid or whether it was a convenient one that allowed for better control of mages.

The interactive map/timeline online helped clear things up a bit better. I guess it'll be more linear next season unless there are additional characters with solitary storylines they need to add in.

[dbunting]

7 hours ago, mormont said:

Surprised nobody has linked the excellent Sapkowski interview about the series from io9 the other day:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-do-not-like-working-too-hard-or-too-long-a-refreshin-1841209529

Sounds like he is the Greg Popovich of authors!

[Prince of the North]

1 hour ago, dbunting said:

Sounds like he is the Greg Popovich of authors!

Heh.  I'm actually not all that familiar with Popovich's interview tendencies.  But I thought this interview read as very "Belichickian"

[AndrewJ]

15 hours ago, red snow said:

 I can understand in a weekly show how they'd like to have all three major characters present (especially if one of them has a bigger part later) but I feel like they could have just done things in a linear way.

The showrunner addresses this directly in the interview linked (or quoted?) earlier. She says that if Yen and Ciri are introduced later, the viewers will always then view them as characters in Geralt's story (regardless of whether the viewers encounter them 3 weeks or 3 hours after watching the start). She wished the show to have 3 main characters of equal importance, rather than one major one with two important side-characters.

So, I understand why it was structured as it was. Whether or not it was successful is a different question. (For me, the show is about Geralt first and foremost. But that may be a result of me coming to the show having played the games).

[Raksha 2014]

I think the role of Geralt is a good one for Henry Cavill - he doesn't talk too much, he looks good half-naked, and he's a physical enough actor to do well with the fighting scenes (which I'll admit to not watching very closely).

I don't particularly like Yennefer as a character, but she seems to have evolved to become a better person by the end of Season 1.  

I'm in it mostly to watch Ciri's journey.  I like her; I think the actress playing her does a good job.  I'm not sure how old the TV character is supposed to be - fourteen or fifteen?  I liked the young Elf who was helping her; and hope they meet again.

I would have liked to see a lot more of Calanthe.  She was a powerful and interesting character; and I liked how Jodhi May played her.

[Corvinus85]

31 minutes ago, Raksha 2014 said:

I think the role of Geralt is a good one for Henry Cavill - he doesn't talk too much, he looks good half-naked, and he's a physical enough actor to do well with the fighting scenes (which I'll admit to not watching very closely).

Well then who better to give you more insight on the sword fights than the man himself

 

 

[Which Tyler]

7 hours ago, AndrewJ said:

The showrunner addresses this directly in the interview linked (or quoted?) earlier. She says that if Yen and Ciri are introduced later, the viewers will always then view them as characters in Geralt's story (regardless of whether the viewers encounter them 3 weeks or 3 hours after watching the start). She wished the show to have 3 main characters of equal importance, rather than one major one with two important side-characters.

So, I understand why it was structured as it was. Whether or not it was successful is a different question. (For me, the show is about Geralt first and foremost. But that may be a result of me coming to the show having played the games).

Unfortunately, the show is still explicitly named for that one character - which kinda renders the idea above null and void.

I'm sure there must be one, but I can't think of a single show / film / book where the titular character isn't also the principal protagonist.

[red snow]

7 hours ago, AndrewJ said:

The showrunner addresses this directly in the interview linked (or quoted?) earlier. She says that if Yen and Ciri are introduced later, the viewers will always then view them as characters in Geralt's story (regardless of whether the viewers encounter them 3 weeks or 3 hours after watching the start). She wished the show to have 3 main characters of equal importance, rather than one major one with two important side-characters.

So, I understand why it was structured as it was. Whether or not it was successful is a different question. (For me, the show is about Geralt first and foremost. But that may be a result of me coming to the show having played the games).

It's good they offered up an explanation at least. It still seems dubious as a reason to have a confusing structure. Being pedantic, one could argue that yennefer only appearing in episode 2 dooms her to second tier based on the showrunner's logic. Or maybe not call the show "the witcher" as i suspect that along with being played by the most recognizable actor leads many to think the show is primarily about Geralt.

4 hours ago, Corvinus said:

Well then who better to give you more insight on the sword fights than the man himself

 

 

He really likes the role doesn't he (or he's a good actor). There are parts where he appears to be recollecting rather than reading an autocue as if he's really geeking out at learning the swordfighting and choreography. He's probably stunt coordinator's pet

if this is how he approached superman it's a damn shame he wasn't given more to work with in bvs and justice League

[Mark Antony]

Looks like the anime movie will be Vesemir backstory

[williamjm]

11 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Unfortunately, the show is still explicitly named for that one character - which kinda renders the idea above null and void.

I'm sure there must be one, but I can't think of a single show / film / book where the titular character isn't also the principal protagonist.

There are quite a few where the title refers to the antagonist The Lord of the Rings, Dr No, The Wrath of Khan.

That said, I agree the title does imply Geralt is the protagonist.

 

[Zorral]

12 hours ago, red snow said:

he's a good actor). There are parts where he appears to be recollecting rather than reading an autocue as if he's really geeking out at learning the swordfighting and choreography. He's probably stunt coordinator's pet

He was like that so much in The Tudors.  His character was present from the first episode to the final one. His character grew from the simple, pleasure-loving, amoral fellow who was from the beginning H VIII's really good friend, to a much more complex, even tormented in his soul, individual -- often in conflict with his king -- to whom he always loyally did what his king asked or demanded, even to losing the love of a wife he dearly loved. The one time he defied his king, technically, he didn't, not really.  He just didn't ask permission to marry H VIII's sister, for which he was ultimately forgiven, remained H VIII's most loyal and trusted servant.  It was a most interesting trajectory, because the actor made the watcher believe it.  In truth his role as Charles Brandon was a lot more challenging and a better one than that of the Witcher.

 

[polishgenius]

Just finished it.

I understand why they structured it the way they did, but it was at times pretty incoherent. Yen's arc especially despite being by far the character with the most growth/chane and the most to actually do suffers from jumping like fifty years at a time between appearances, more than once radically developing her character in that time.

And Ciri's story was literally only there so we know who she is once she starts actually doing stuff.


Anyway, even though it's far too messy for me to actually call it good I did enjoy it and will watch more, and hopefully things will become a bit more tightly structured once they start getting into the meat of the story and novels rather than covering backstory introduced in the books as I understand it by shorts.

[red snow]

4 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

Looks like the anime movie will be Vesemir backstory

Hopefully not a key character as he wasn't in the first season, let alone first episode

41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

He was like that so much in The Tudors.  His character was present from the first episode to the final one. His character grew from the simple, pleasure-loving, amoral fellow who was from the beginning H VIII's really good friend, to a much more complex, even tormented in his soul, individual -- often in conflict with his king -- to whom he always loyally did what his king asked or demanded, even to losing the love of a wife he dearly loved. The one time he defied his king, technically, he didn't, not really.  He just didn't ask permission to marry H VIII's sister, for which he was ultimately forgiven, remained H VIII's most loyal and trusted servant.  It was a most interesting trajectory, because the actor made the watcher believe it.  In truth his role as Charles Brandon was a lot more challenging and a better one than that of the Witcher.

 

I do recall him being in Tudors and how he went from best buds with Henry to utterly haunted by some of the shitty things he'd done or witnessed as said best friend. He played more of a quiet character on the whole - certainly wasn't chewing scenery like Henry VIII.

Does the Witcher become more complicated as the books progress? Or is he mainly the quiet gruff type? It'll be interesting to see if it's a role where his actions have to do the talking.

[Mark Antony]

10 minutes ago, red snow said:

Hopefully not a key character as he wasn't in the first season, let alone first episode

 Long before mentoring Geralt, Vesemir begins his own journey as a witcher after the mysterious Deglan claims him through the Law of Surprise

[red snow]

10 hours ago, Mark Antony said:

 

 

Maybe a prequel cartoon show gets around the insurmountable "can't be important as they weren't introduced in season 1 episode 1"?

[karaddin]

That first video with Cavill certainly explains why they didn't manage to quite match that first fight through the rest of the season. The amount of work and reshoots that must have gone into getting that much into a single shot is quite impressive. And yeah, he definitely comes across as loving it.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

That first video with Cavill certainly explains why they didn't manage to quite match that first fight through the rest of the season. The amount of work and reshoots that must have gone into getting that much into a single shot is quite impressive. And yeah, he definitely comes across as loving it.

Always open strong but maybe not so strong the rest is obviously inferior. There were some nice moments at the end. I liked in the video how they reiterated the characterisation that went into the fight - that approach is gold.

I wonder if they didn't have the choreography on board throughout? Given Cavill's taking to the role they'd be wise to give him some more action. Although i can understand from a production POV you don't want to risk injuring your lead (or one part of the triumvirate). That and those svenes must cost money due to reshoots