The Witcher S3: Bye Bye Henry

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I’d read something (on realising it had spoilers for last episode I clicked back) about how the Hensworth Geralt was an alternate universe Geralt, and dreaded that actually happened. Glad it didnt!

I dreaded that occurred when Ciri portaled to the desert and she kept seeing that mysterious figure.

[TormundsWoman]

2 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

I’ve seen people who’ve played some of the games but not read the books complain that Ciri is taking over as the main character, which is true of the books.

I'll be honest I did not read the books (only the short story ones The Last Wish and Sword of Destiny) but watching the series I imagined that's the entire premise of it. For Ciri to build up to this incredible powerful Child of Chaos and become the central  character. Everyone really gravitates around her since the first ep. She just happened to search for her adoptive parents along the way and we were fortunate enough to have them be fully rounded and complete characters. The fact they are incredibly fleshed out with childhood memories and sprawling backstories of their own doesn't really signify.

[Corvinus85]

It's dumb 'Muricans fault, y'all (and pesky kids)

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-producer-blames-americans-and-impatient-young-people-for-the-netflix-shows-simplified-plot/

Quote

One of the most common criticisms of The Witcher on Netflix is that it strays too far from Andrzej Sapkowski's novels...

...in an interview with Polish site Wyborcza (translated by Witcher fan site Redanian Intelligence), executive producer Tomek Baginski explained why some of those changes were made: "[A] higher level of nuance and complexity will have a smaller range."

...

But the needs of an international audience, particularly a Western audience—and even more specifically the lucrative US market—also have to be kept in mind, according to Baginski. He said he encountered a "perceptual block" with American audiences some years ago, when he was promoting an unfinished film project called Hardkor 44, a sci-fi retelling of the Warsaw Uprising.

"[I] tried to explain: There was an uprising against Germany, but the Russians were across the river, and on the German side there were also soldiers from Hungary or Ukraine," he said. "For Americans, it was completely incomprehensible, too complicated, because they grew up in a different historical context, where everything was arranged: America is always good, the rest are the bad guys. And there are no complications."

...

He's not done, either. In addition to laying the blame at the door of all Americans, Baginski had more shots to fire in defence of Netflix's less-literate take on The Witcher. In a separate interview with YouTube channel Imponderabilia, he also pointed the finger at the kids, saying that growing up with YouTube and TikTok has left them without the patience for "longer content [and] long and complicated chains of cause and effect."

(The interviewer in that case, who described himself as someone from that younger generation, had a very pointed response to Baginski's statement: "What you mean is that you don't know how to make a show that kids would like to watch." Ouch.)

His point maybe would have had more validity if this show had come out before Game of Thrones and other similar shows. And I stress the maybe. And yes, GoT also had its simplifications for likely similar reasons, but this guy seems to have taken a past bad experience to heart and his abilities as a TV show creator are limited.

[Filippa Eilhart]

7 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

’d read something (on realising it had spoilers for last episode I clicked back) about how the Hensworth Geralt was an alternate universe Geralt, and dreaded that actually happened. Glad it didnt!

It is an alternative worlds story after all

[Zorral]

There is nothing about this show that isn't . . . baffling . . . 

Is it sad that a show feels the need to explain what happened in the show, and seems to expect the viewers are going to be thrilled they are telling us what we didn't get?

EXPLAINER
‘The Witcher’ Season 3 Ending Explainer: What Happens to Geralt?
Who ended the season in grave danger?
Who Is Falka? Freya Allan Explains Ciri’s ‘The Witcher’ Journey
Who Is Emhyr? Explaining the Mysterious Emperor in ‘The Witcher’
Etc.

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/witcher-season-3-ending-explainer?

 

[RhaenysBee]

14 minutes ago, Zorral said:

There is nothing about this show that isn't . . . baffling . . . 

Is it sad that a show feels the need to explain what happened in the show, and seems to expect the viewers are going to be thrilled they are telling us what we didn't get?

EXPLAINER
‘The Witcher’ Season 3 Ending Explainer: What Happens to Geralt?
Who ended the season in grave danger?
Who Is Falka? Freya Allan Explains Ciri’s ‘The Witcher’ Journey
Who Is Emhyr? Explaining the Mysterious Emperor in ‘The Witcher’
Etc.

https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/witcher-season-3-ending-explainer?

 

I mean the show is so bad I do need the explanation, I just stand no chance understanding their plot because they spend all the screen time on pretentious monologues instead of building a story…

they did the same with game of thrones in the later seasons when the writing got to such lows and the scenes were so dark we literally couldn’t follow events… I don’t know, twenty years ago nobody needed aftershow episodes and explainopedia because watching an episode was enough to get it… in series with a tenth of the budget the Witcher had… 

but what am I moaning about I have 2.5 episodes left, so the benefit of doubt is still kicking. 

[RhaenysBee]

Turns out I didn’t even have 2.5 half episodes left, I had only the 0.5 to go. I suppose all seasons have been 8 episodes and I should have remembered that, but why the fck would you cut it off after 5 and release 3 separately? Why not halve it? 

Anyway. It had potential, but ended up going off the rails and was an eventual train wreck. Referring back to the previous point of discussion, I did have to Google at least three things the show should have made clear to make sense of what turned out to be the final episode. 

there was a lot I didn’t like and a few things that did work beautifully, so let’s start with those. 
 

Spoiler

I sort of expected Ciri’s desert excursion to be glossed over in a 5-10 minute sequence and I was pleasantly surprised to find that they actually adapted that chapter and kept(ish) its structure and arch. Freya Allen did an amazing job, she is cut out for more than the script allows in essential every other scene of the season. Costume continuity was all over the place but let’s not get nitpicky. I appreciate that we actually spent time with Ciri and didn’t let her get out of the desert very easily. I loved the cinematography, I liked that I could at least smell the effort in the script. Not saying it worked out in the end, but there were traces of intention to weave plot and message together. 

I also very much liked that Fringilla and Francesca ended up divided and were ready to throw each other under the bus because they each had different motivations. This sort of saved the story from descending into good guys vs bad guys, which it’s been edging dangerously close to this past season. 

Jaskier had a couple good moments when he was allowed to be the bard again in Brokilon with Geralt. The whole Brokilon bit was otherwise a mess but Jaskier did have a flashback to his actual character which was great and showed in Joey Batey’s acting. 

The Rats introduction was kinda all right. I liked that the Redanian servant was the one to kill Vizimir, that was a good save. I liked Ciri’s song, I really liked those three seconds when Stregobor lived up to his position and swooshed his cloak to hold up the enemy with his fire magic and buy the other mages some time, that was a lovely moment there. I liked the bit when Tissaia did the last resort spell and her hair turned white.

I think that was about all that I liked. 

And onto the myriad of problems. 
 

Spoiler

The show is incapable of leading a plot or keeping up any sense of consistency. The world building is still atrocious and the characters are still made a joke of. The curious thing is that the show so often provides messages and takeaways I’m not sure they intend at all. 

There was no transition between the ball episode and the battle episode, it took me half the coup scene to have a faint clue of what’s going on since we left Yennefer and Geralt who just figured out (based on absolutely nothing other than contrivance and wild conclusion jumps) that Vilgefortz was the bad guy. The show never established what the scoiatael was and I don’t really remember either, so it’s pure guesswork why and how this faction is turning up at Thanedd. Filavandrel’s death was as pathetic as everything else about his character. The Vilgefortz v Geralt fight made me laugh out loud, the dude literally beat the Witcher up with an oversized drill bit. What a ludicrous visual. The show didn’t establish Tor Lara’s history and significance and thus none of what went down there landed with the desired impact. 

The Ciri in the desert sequence had its problems too, mainly the complete lack of establishment of Falka and her link to Ciri and her storyline. The whole breaking the wheel thing is still a fetch that’s never going to happen. Changing the sYsTeM, social justice and complete societal utopia aren’t what the Witcher is about, this isn’t the agenda of the novels you are trying to adapt, don’t put your cuckoo’s egg in a nest someone else built.

This is a good point to mention that Ciri’s conversation with Geralt on the ship about how peace and equality could or should be forced on the Continent rings Anakin and Padmé at the Naboo picnic and related memes. We all realize how Anakin’s drive to bring peace, freedom and justice to his new empire worked out, right? So careful there.

Redania, while the only kingdom that’s actually portrayed in any way (kudos for that), is kind of a hot mess. If you can just kill royals every week, what exactly keeps you (as in Philippa and/or Dijkstra and by proxy any other mage) from breaking that wheel the show seems to have made Ciri’s vision to break?  Philippa has no reason to put Radovid (as portrayed in the show) on the throne when he was juxtaposed as the one with a prowess next to Vizimir (poor guy) and thus as someone who wouldn’t likely be a puppet to Phillipa. And that’s the point where the snake bites its own tail for the second time.

After Thanedd the mages don’t really do anything other than talk and talk and talk and talk. Yennefer is weak and useless, the shadow of her season 1 self. Anyway, she wasn’t the one to have it worst. Tissaia poor woman was turned inside out. She went from turning students into eels for a teachable moment to fond suicide notes with pet names and hugging and mothering Yennefer. I’m not sure why this motherliness in Yennefer and Tissaia was made a focal point of this season and why tough love died out in season 2. For one thing it makes Triss completely redundant and invalidates the two’s former characters. And here’s the ironic and probably unintended part about it: Yennefer and Tissaia both were unapologetically hard and commanding and willful and even unpleasant and brusque in season 1 and now they are nice and sweet and docile and remorseful. The arch in itself implies this as preferable to the hardass personalities they had in previous seasons. And since Geralt and Yennefer basically became happy co-parents and the show has the audacity to have a dialogue about how content and happy Tissaia is with Vilgefortz (not only write her into a relationship with him), what you are basically saying is - well, ladies, all it takes is getting laid, and look how good it is for you to finally have boyfriends! Is that really what you meant to say? I somehow doubt it. 

So Geralt and Triss got to Brokilon - I don’t know how, if the show established it, it went over my head. And Milva was at some point introduced. Was she? I don’t know. After she kept firing arrows for no reason whatsoever I finally started picking up on the idea that she might be Milva. No clue why she went with Geralt and Jaskier. No clue why she was in Brokilon. Literally no background. And also  no clue why she’s wearing a Tiger Lily costume. 

Nilfgaard… oh dear. The world building issues. I just wish Emhyr would take his sodding armor off. Aren’t you in the south? Aren’t you at home and not marching to battle? Why are you wearing armor? I have no idea where we left fake Ciri but it doesn’t matter anyway for all the show cares for continuity. Then there were these random people in turbans and robes who captured Ciri. Where are we? What place is this on this bloody continent? Why are they wearing that? Are they a faction? Are they local to the desert? Are they Nilfgaardian? How can you make so little sense? 

So. If you expect me to follow a plot you need to establish, places, people, motivations and then be consistent. To be consistent, you need to do some world building. I need to be able to recognize places and factions from a single shot. The way they dress, the way their location looks, the way they talk, etc. All this kinda needs to align so it doesn’t look absolutely stupid (Like you know, Milva).   I also need to have at least a vague idea about the backstory of characters, factions, place, etc to understand their significance so your use of them in the story will achieve the desired impact. If you don’t do that, the universe will be empty, shallow and bland and if you don’t have an immersive universe, and you don’t have a strong plot, and you don’t have consistent (or incrementally and reasonably changing) characters, and you don’t even have Henry Cavill, what exactly are you offering to the audience?  

 

Edited August 6, 2023 by RhaenysBee

[sifth]

Man watching this show, often makes me appreciate the early seasons of A Game of Thrones, more than I ever thought possible. At least we had about 4 years or so, of a really good tv show, adapting a great book series. The Witcher tv show has just been a hot mess though and we're only 3 seasons in.

[TormundsWoman]

On 8/3/2023 at 1:51 PM, Corvinus85 said:

It's dumb 'Muricans fault, y'all (and pesky kids)

https://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-producer-blames-americans-and-impatient-young-people-for-the-netflix-shows-simplified-plot/

His point maybe would have had more validity if this show had come out before Game of Thrones and other similar shows. And I stress the maybe. And yes, GoT also had its simplifications for likely similar reasons, but this guy seems to have taken a past bad experience to heart and his abilities as a TV show creator are limited.

It's always the Muricans fault, Corvinus! You knew nothing

Now you do

[Caligula_K3]

Finally watched season 3. It pretty much matched my expectations: another inconsistent, mainly good and entertaining, sometimes bad, occasionally great season of schlocky fantasy television.

The weaknesses are about the same as past seasons: sometimes the writers take shortcuts for character development and plot twists. The biggest examples are Fringilla appearing at the Nilfgaard coup out of nowhere and, more seriously, Cahir's turn away from Nilfgaard. I've read the books and knew the latter was coming, and they were setting it up with his conflict over killing his elven friend. But it really did feel like a jarring 180.

This season had a lot more politics, some of it entertaining. I did enjoy the ball episode, and I like the Djikstra/Vezimir/Philippa dynamic. On the other hand, too many politics scenes are written in very boring expositionary style, much like House of the Dragons, with lots of talk with and about characters you barely remember and who are not really important.

The show is at its worst when it tries to handle visions and creepiness, as we saw with that whole witch plotline in Season 2 and we see again in the Ciri desert visions episode. It's hard to portray this stuff well on TV, but here in particular it just comes off as really cheesy and amateurish. The same is true for the wizard fight scenes.

On the other hand, the show is probably at its best when it focuses on the dynamics between the main characters: Geralt, Yennefer, Ciri, Jaskier. There's a real warmth there which is missing from so many of the new fantasy TV adaptations, and all the actors are quite good. I'm also glad that the season, towards its end, focuses on the novels' most interesting theme: the impossibility of neutrality. I thought it was a very strong ending, and a great send-off for Cavill.

It's hard to know where the show can go from here. In losing Cavill, they're losing their best asset. The story of the novels only gets less tightly plotted, and Geralt himself becomes a more minor character: Baptism of Fire is my favourite book of the series, but it's one with very little plot and in which Geralt accomplishes little. And it seems that the general internet consensus is that this show is terrible, with a lot of hostility directed towards the writers. The reality is, though, that the Witcher novels as they're written are essentially impossible to adapt for TV, and changes are inevitable. The writers haven't always done a good job of making those changes, but it's an impossible task when every change is immediately met with hostility from fans, many of whom I suspect haven't even read the books and are taking their talking points from random internet websites.

I suspect that when Season 4 comes out with Liam Hemsworth it'll immediately be criticized no matter what. But I've made my peace with the fact that this show is never going to be a masterpiece: as long as it's fun and stays at this level of quality, I'll be happy to watch it.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Caligula_K3 said:

the general internet consensus

With this and a couple of pounds, you can buy a coffee.

Seriously, identifying 'the general internet consensus' on anything is a pointless exercise. It's almost impossible to objectively identify what it is, and it tells you nothing of real value even if you can. Like fishing for used boots.

[Zorral]

How The Witcher Will Explain Geralt Changing from Henry Cavill to Liam Hemsworth Seems Clear Now

https://redanianintelligence.com/2023/08/10/how-the-witcher-replace-henry-cavill-liam-hemsworth-clear/

It's interesting that despite the Strike postponing shooting until next year at the earliest, it seems Netflix is dedicated to having a season 4.

This, however ... 

Fortunately, The Witcher producer has once again discussed this matter in an interview with Wyborcza, and here he seems to disqualify the multiverse theory outright.  

Did the author and the showrunners really think giving the reader / viewer a significant amount of material by which the reader / viewer invests in this universe only then to pull the rug and say "None of what you believe happened, happened." is a good way to keep readers / viewers invested to continue?  Is this a daring strategy or is this just ... amateur hour?

Quote

 “Many book readers forget what Andrzej Sapkowski did in the fifth volume of the saga. For me, this is one of the most important things in the whole story. I’m not talking about specific events, but the narrative framework that was introduced in this book. Suddenly, at the beginning of the book, we learn that everything we’ve read so far might not have been true. And this cannot be compared with, for example, the currently popular concept of the multiverse, where out of nowhere there are many different realities.” ....

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Zorral

[Rippounet]

The previous seasons had put the bar low enough that I enjoyed this season. Well, half of it, anyway. The first episodes were terribly written, but by the time we reached the conclave I'd managed to get enough information to enjoy first the political dance and then the fight. The desert episode was also quite decent imho, though establishing who Falka was/is prior to that would have been nice.
Generally speaking, the show proved -once again- dismal at establishing anything. Partner and I kept wondering out loud if we were supposed to know who this or that character was while trying to keep track of plot points that were only loosely connected. Because of that, the impact of plot twists was considerably lessened. Vilgeforzt's betrayal or Fringilla killing Arturus (Oh, he was her uncle? We'd forgotten that) had no emotional effect for instance.
The whole thing felt like cheap 90s fantasy - Legend of the Seeker or Merlin come to my mind.
I'd still say that was kind of a high note for Cavill to leave on. The thing is too badly written to stick with it, and we got to see enough to have a vage idea of what the story was supposed to be, with a few good fights. I doubt it was going to get better than that anyway, and without his charisma to carry it, the show will lose most of its interest.
I'd go for the books, but people seem divided on their quality as well.

Edited August 14, 2023 by Rippounet

[Ran]

Doug Cockle will be voicing Geralt for this animated series. For those who don't know, he's the fellow who voiced Geralt in the three CDPR games.

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Good, they should only stick to animation for this IP. 

[SpaceChampion]

 

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

You guys who felt let down by this Netflix show should all play Witcher 2 and 3 if you still haven’t. Hell play Thronebreaker Witcher Tales as well, (although it’s a card game style RPG) all three games have much better writing,music and art direction than this crap. 

[Feologild]

Season 1 was ok, not great just ok

Season 2 was not very good in my opinion, 

I have not seen season 3 yet.

[3CityApache]

This is one of the best short stories from Sword of Destiny. I really hope they won’t fuck it up. Just stick to the text, it’s great. 

[Ran]

Sapkowski says that Netflix never really bothered with his input on the show, which he takes as normal put of Hollywood.