Argive wrote: my GF struggled to keep up with the change in plot lines/time and it seems to have been made a lot harder to follow and awkeward than it needs to be for reasons..
I got it but it wore thin very quick. I get sort of why they did it but dont think they achieved any more than just flowing chronologicaly.
That being said it personally didint bother me all that much.
What did bother me is the annoying garbage tier attempt at novel comic relief in the form of yaskir. His poor writing and pointless babbling was very immersion breaking.
It seems all ther CG budget went into the monster at the begining of the series for trailers reasons I gueess?
As someone who has neither played the games or read the books as a stand alone product Id give it a solid 7/10 overall.
And I am eyeing up the games. Might get a box set on steam.
Or at leats the first 2 and get the 3rd one for PS4.
I would recommend jumping into the 3rd one straight away. The games got better with each new release. and don’t forget to get Blood and Wine, and more importantly, Hearts of stone - probably the best part of all games, imho
Witcher 3 GotY Edition currently 70% off on Steam.
Argive wrote: my GF struggled to keep up with the change in plot lines/time and it seems to have been made a lot harder to follow and awkeward than it needs to be for reasons..
I got it but it wore thin very quick. I get sort of why they did it but dont think they achieved any more than just flowing chronologicaly.
That being said it personally didint bother me all that much.
What did bother me is the annoying garbage tier attempt at novel comic relief in the form of yaskir. His poor writing and pointless babbling was very immersion breaking.
It seems all ther CG budget went into the monster at the begining of the series for trailers reasons I gueess?
As someone who has neither played the games or read the books as a stand alone product Id give it a solid 7/10 overall.
And I am eyeing up the games. Might get a box set on steam.
Or at leats the first 2 and get the 3rd one for PS4.
I would recommend jumping into the 3rd one straight away. The games got better with each new release. and don’t forget to get Blood and Wine, and more importantly, Hearts of stone - probably the best part of all games, imho
Witcher 3 GotY Edition currently 70% off on Steam.
Hearts of Stone was a good part of the game. My second play through, I appreciated it much more then the first. Blood and Wine though, was without a doubt the creme of the crop. The story was great, but what sealed it for me was the color. After how dark and dreary everything was in Velen, Touissant was just so beautifully vibrant.
I am trying to avoid judging the series till I am through with it but it is difficult.
Regarding the games, I personally was not able to get into the 1st or the 2nd. The third however was what got me into the entire series; I started the game, really liked the setting then read all of the books before getting too far into the game.
Thus I highly recommend Witcher 3 and the books; I would say the books are not 100% required for the game but they do help get immersed in the setting and to better know the character history.
blood and whine and hearts of stone I don't like to call DLC you say "DLC" and folks think horse armor. etc. I prefer to call em what they are. old school "expansion packs"
LordofHats wrote: The series did finally get me to go bother and get Wild Hunt. For my Switch. Cause I like my switch and want games to play on it XD
problem with the switch edition is it's not as nice looking at the oither versions I hear, but the games so good it could be early 90s pixal graphics and still be amazing
I've found myself appreciating the consoles portability far more than I expected. I can take it anywhere and play full blown games (albeit on a very tiny screen). I've never cared much about graphics. They're not what makes a game.
BrianDavion wrote: I prefer to call em what they are. old school "expansion packs"
You're right that's what they are. Blood and Whine is an incredible expansion. The world is huge.
yeah, I literally just finished it again yesterday (I started a witcher 3 play through again In late October, and am just finishing up now.... damnit I love this game!) and yeah Toussant is basicly equal in size to one of the three core regions.
BrianDavion wrote: I prefer to call em what they are. old school "expansion packs"
You're right that's what they are. Blood and Whine is an incredible expansion. The world is huge.
A little bit of a Freudian slip there?
p[roably not as there's really nothing to whine about in witcher 3, I mean there are some issues with it (easy to get hung up on a fence in combat for example) but it's damn near close to a perfect RPG
Blood and whine story was a bit inferior to that of Hearts of stone, imho. And the colors are a bit tooooo vibrant for my liking, haha. Also the mission about two rival wineries was the most tedious mission in the whole game..
Plus, Hearts of stone has a chapter with a wedding in it. Which is officially the best thing in the world. It has a certificate and everything.
I finished the series. It's a solid B- effort for me, maybe 6.5 or 7 out of 10. Not awful by any stretch, but enough "what the feth?" moments per episode to keep me out of the immersion.
Enjoyed Cavill though, so that's a pretty key thing.
Haven't read the books or played the games, but I just finished watching the show. I was pretty entertained, but Caville hardcarried the everloving crap out of this series, without him, a lot of the it could easily have been right of those 5-digit budget straight to DVD fantasy movies of the late '00s or a skit from The Guild
That said, Yennefer's early story was particularly great, as was Tissaia's role.
Definitely. Caville is to the Witcher as Ewen McGreggor is to the Prequel Trilogy. Their backs must hurt something fierce from carrying everything, lol.
That series was bloody outstanding. Don't get the whinging about timelines etc, people who say that must have bloody hated Westworld and other shows that play around with time because it was pretty straightforward. If this gets ruined by the critics whinging about not knowing what's happening.... Ugh. One of the most faithful adaptations to date
I just finished binging the series and I must say it's very meh. It pretty much makes all the mistakes of the adult fantasy genre.
non-chronological story telling; romances are conjured and thrown at the main character's face more surely than fire balls; uneven pacing; one of the three main character is basically nothing more than a walking plot device; uneven world building where things like the role of magic or religion are vastly ignored or poorly explained even though they are critical to the plot; gratious nudity and violence to try and hook the viewer in the first episode.
The acting and special effect was pretty uneven too. The very first monster and the Strigia were very well done, but the dragons and faun were pathetic (this show wins my award for worst dragon in movies and series so far). For the acting, Cavill certainly tried his best and managed to give a character, who otherwise would be about as flat as a board, some dignity and presence, but the actress who played Yennifer was only good back when she was playing her in her youth and terrible when she played her in adulthood the fact that her story arc in part 2 was terrible certainly didn't help.
Spoiler:
Seriously, who thought that "I want to have a baby" can be a good motivation for a major character in a TV show. That's basically only a good motivation for some psychotic killer in a B horror movie or a nearly irrelevent side character like the one that finds Ciri on the road. It's terrible because it can be solved incredibly easily by simply adopting a god damn orphan. It's not like they are rare anyway. Ironically that's precisely what the other "I want to have a baby" character did or at least tried to do.
The sets and costumes were bland with most of the wolrd looking really empty and in shades of grey and sad green and the costumes your generic medieval fantasy armors and clothes with not much to spice them up a little bit, but the cinematography was very good with excellent shots and competant editing. The stunt work was fairly good even though it only truly showed in the first episode.
Westworld used the non-linear storytelling entirely differently than Witcher. In WW you had no idea they were doing until the very end of the first season. You had two storylines that went pretty well a single timeline each, were left to assume they were happening at the same time, and only got a twist reveal at the end that one was actually a backstory to the other.
Witcher has three storylines. They inform you very early on they’re not happening at the same time. Two of those storylines time skip forward at various paces and various times over two (?) decades.
motyak wrote: Don't get the whinging about timelines
Because it's bloody boring and useless. If you don't tell a story chronologically it's for a reason. It's to create tension or segway into some background explanation, but in the case of that show it was done to basically follow the adventures of three characters at the same time up until they all reach the same point. None of the actions of the characters influence each other much until they actually meet one another and join the same timeline. There is no "butterfly effect" payoff or setup. One story doesn't feed us background explanation and information that can be used in a story later in the timeline either. Geralt story doesn't inform us about Ciri's story beside how their parents got married and that she got her powers from her mother which is, frankly, a useless detail. Yennifer story doesn't affect Ciri's story at all nor does it affect Geralt story until they meet each other. By constantly cutting from one timeline to the next, you are basically diluting your adventure and any sense of tension possibly imaginable which is essential for Ciri's story to have any entertainment value. It makes each individual story more boring. The fact that Geralt spends basically the entire season in "episode of the week mode" while Yennifer passes through a story of her own in the past and a Ciri is trapped in the actual current plot is very poor story telling. It's not "confusing" it's kinda stupid and boring in my opinion.
AduroT wrote: Westworld used the non-linear storytelling entirely differently than Witcher. In WW you had no idea they were doing until the very end of the first season. You had two storylines that went pretty well a single timeline each, were left to assume they were happening at the same time, and only got a twist reveal at the end that one was actually a backstory to the other.
See this sounds like a clever use of a gimmick to achieve a shocking reveal.
Witcher has three storylines. They inform you very early on they’re not happening at the same time. Two of those storylines time skip forward at various paces and various times over two (?) decades.
This sounds like the story could have been told chronologically and wasted a lot less of my time since the gimmick never went anywhere or informed us of anything. It just existed... cause...
AegisGrimm wrote:Definitely. Caville is to the Witcher as Ewen McGreggor is to the Prequel Trilogy. Their backs must hurt something fierce from carrying everything, lol.
It would certainly explain how he maintains that physique, anyone deadlifting that much is gonna be ripped
epronovost wrote: For the acting, Cavill certainly tried his best and managed to give a character, who otherwise would be about as flat as a board, some dignity and presence, but the actress who played Yennifer was only good back when she was playing her in her youth and terrible when she played her in adulthood the fact that her story arc in part 2 was terrible certainly didn't help.
Spoiler:
Seriously, who thought that "I want to have a baby" can be a good motivation for a major character in a TV show. That's basically only a good motivation for some psychotic killer in a B horror movie or a nearly irrelevent side character like the one that finds Ciri on the road. It's terrible because it can be solved incredibly easily by simply adopting a god damn orphan. It's not like they are rare anyway. Ironically that's precisely what the other "I want to have a baby" character did or at least tried to do.
Aye, Yennifer's first arc is awesome, and actually had me way more engaged than the rest of the show through that point. But then...
Spoiler:
She basically gets everything she ever wanted, but then decides it's not good enough and is mad she can't have her cake and eat it too, despite knowing the consequences of her choices and enthusiastically embracing it. Yennifer ends up being a lot less sympathetic and increasingly one-dimensional/cardboard cut-out as it went on, ending up as a powerful, well trained, experienced, street-wise, politically powerful and well connected archmage with a script that instead comes off far more as angsty teenage rebel.
EDIT: With regard to the time thing, I was a little put off by it, as it didn't quite initially jive with me the first times it tried to hint at stuff and I just came off confused, but I was also highly inebriated at the time so I can't hold that against it too much. Beyond that, it was ok, I didn't hate it, I wasn't expecting cinematic gold from this.
I think its important for people to remember that Yennifer is NOT a good person. While her story shows a sympathetic WHY to her decisions (she is ultimately all about maintaining her freedom of choice) she will burn down pretty much anyone who gets in her way. Shes a gak person who doesnt care who gets hurt if its needed to get what she wants.
A decent enoug GoT comparison is Cersi. She will do anything to grab power for herself and place her children as next in line. Everyone else in the world can die to maintain that. Even her brother.
Yennifer never goes to Cersis extremes in part because Yennifers ambitions are not so broad and all encompassing. But if they were she would be the character that goes to those lengths.
My main issue with the shifting timelines in the season are simple; it wasn't adequately explained the first several times it happened. Unless I missed it being put up on the screen, there was zero indication. The characters did not appear younger or older, no one had differing hair styles or were CGI'ed to even look different, etc. There was no tonal change, the bad guys were the same, the characters more or less the same, etc. There wasn't an on-screen indicator (a shift in colour palette, etc.). It also essentially served no real purpose.
There was no reveal that the timeline shift made...we knew who "the girl in the woods" was almost immediately, etc. It came off as a kind of "try hard" artistic choice which wasn't really warranted.
I watched this season as someone who has not played The Witcher, and has not read the novels (though I'm obviously aware of the game, etc.).
There are things that bugged me more, but this is dakka, so I won't bother with them.
I think the bright side is that the time thing is probably done with. With the way the first season ended, I hope a second will be a lot less janky in terms of pacing and be more consistent.
LordofHats wrote: I think the bright side is that the time thing is probably done with. With the way the first season ended, I hope a second will be a lot less janky in terms of pacing and be more consistent.
That's mildly encouraging. The irony also makes it that if someone wanted to skip the first season and go straight in the second it would be very feasable with minimum efforts.
I didn't mind the time jumping thing at all, I think people are making way too big of a deal about it.
It's just following the storylines of 3 people who have chronologically very different start points, Geralt and Yen are probably about 80 to 90-ish years old (from memory) by the time they encounter Ciri. I was not expecting some big pay off for the storyline jumping, simply that I expected them to converge at some point.
It didn't throw me when time jumps occurred, even from the first episode it was pretty obvious that time was jumping around.
The only bit I found a bit jerky was Yen's jump from early times to current times, but I think that's more of a critique on character development than the actual time jumps, as folks have said the 2nd half of Yen's story is a bit weak.
I think it's more that the time jumping is the easiest to identify issue with the series' pacing. Episode's 2-4 (and five imo) are a complete drag as the story jumps about randomly. We spend a lot of time going back and forth and around randomly between three different characters, one of whom never does anything because she's waiting for the other two to catch up, one of whom spends the first half of the series being an unlikable brat and who frankly is a completely functional character in the season's later half without all that gak, and the other is pretty damn great but we keep getting pulled away from him to check in on what these other two are doing (which isn't much). Then you throw in that time is jumping all over the place and it becomes not just a drag but a real anchor on the overall narrative of the season, especially from what I can tell for people who have only passing/or no familiarity with the source material.
I don't know how the books treat it, but it seems the producers of the show really wanted to tell Yen and Ciri's background rather than just following Geralt.
Maybe it would have been better if they'd just followed Geralt more. In the games (haven't read the books) Geralt himself isn't super interesting, he's just a good window from which to see the world.
Either way I didn't mind the TV season. It was a bit flat at times but I'm not going to blame that on the time jumping, it's just general poor writing.
Looking forward to the next season, hopefully it was popular enough for them to continue making them.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Looking forward to the next season, hopefully it was popular enough for them to continue making them.
The good thing about Netflix is that since it's not dependant on adds revenue to run, a show with low rating can get second seasons without much problem as long as the streaming service doesn't lose subscribers. Thus, it's rare for high budget shows not to have second or third seasons "to get it right".
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Looking forward to the next season, hopefully it was popular enough for them to continue making them.
The good thing about Netflix is that since it's not dependant on adds revenue to run, a show with low rating can get second seasons without much problem as long as the streaming service doesn't lose subscribers. Thus, it's rare for high budget shows not to have second or third seasons "to get it right".
I don't really understand how Netflix works as far as getting additional seasons is concerned, but I assume they need to be getting views and positive feedback to continue a series.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Looking forward to the next season, hopefully it was popular enough for them to continue making them.
The good thing about Netflix is that since it's not dependant on adds revenue to run, a show with low rating can get second seasons without much problem as long as the streaming service doesn't lose subscribers. Thus, it's rare for high budget shows not to have second or third seasons "to get it right".
The bad thing about Netflix is that since it’s not dependent on adds revenue to run, a show with high rating can get canceled after two seasons because it’s not bringing in New subscribers anymore.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Looking forward to the next season, hopefully it was popular enough for them to continue making them.
The good thing about Netflix is that since it's not dependant on adds revenue to run, a show with low rating can get second seasons without much problem as long as the streaming service doesn't lose subscribers. Thus, it's rare for high budget shows not to have second or third seasons "to get it right".
The bad thing about Netflix is that since it’s not dependent on adds revenue to run, a show with high rating can get canceled after two seasons because it’s not bringing in New subscribers anymore.
So far, I haven't seen many netflix show with average and up review not getting renew on a regular basis. In fact, the only big shows that were cancelled to my knowledge were their Marvel shows because they lost the licence to make them. I suppose you are thinking about a show in particular, but I don't happen to know about it.
witcher is also getting popular audiance reception, the critics are bashing it sure but those whom are actually intreasted in the series, by and large like it.
thing is a lot of the orgin story stuff that doesn't seem important now will be important later on.
I wonder how many genuine fans The Witcher games have. Supposedly it's sold over 40 million copies, but I imagine a lot of those are just people picking it up on Steam at a sale and might have never played it.
If half the people who bought the game end up watching the show, it'd still to make it one of the most popular shows around, but I wonder what the real number of fans might be.
As an aside, it's probably been mentioned, but it's great to see how passionate Henry Cavill is about the role and the franchise. It's great to watch interviews with actors who genuinely love the role they are playing, I didn't watch anything before watching the series to avoid spoilers, but watching them now is quite entertaining.
So as a viewer who has not played the games yet or read the books....are mages and Witchers given incredibly long lives? The timeframe of the show implies it, but never explains.
Honestly, if they did not do the timeline stuff, this would be a terrible series. None of it would jive together at all, and the episodic nature of it would be really boring as the show focused on one character at a time and completely skipped the rest for long periods. Telling it sequentially would have been truly awful, instead of the mediocrity we get instead.
The first 1-3 episodes are the best. The Lesser Evil theme of the first is excellent and Yennifer's initial arc is very strong. However, it quickly segways and shows that in this world, getting want you want does not lead to a happy ending.... Yennifer is still an empty shell of a person..... This Theme of No Happy Ever After is pretty common in this series. Calanthe and Eist, Dancy and Yvannette (sp), Geralt and Yennifer, etc.
AegisGrimm wrote: So as a viewer who has not played the games yet or read the books....are mages and Witchers given incredibly long lives? The timeframe of the show implies it, but never explains.
Yep, mages can slow their aging process to a crawl, and the Witcher mutations give them long life, they tend to die in battle rather than of old age. Geralt and Yen are probably about 80-90 in the TV series in the most recent timeline that they jump between.
Not played the games much but I really loved the books. And I can't decide if I should watch the show or not.
I watched the trailer and it looked visually crappy, almost kitsch. Is it the case ?
Also, I went through the previous pages but I haven't see much opinion from people who have read the books. So, is the show so good it's worth "pollute" my very plesant memory of this reading or not ?
IronSlug wrote: Not played the games much but I really loved the books. And I can't decide if I should watch the show or not.
I watched the trailer and it looked visually crappy, almost kitsch. Is it the case ?
Also, I went through the previous pages but I haven't see much opinion from people who have read the books. So, is the show so good it's worth "pollute" my very plesant memory of this reading or not ?
I have not read the book, but this will not hold up.... it is only mid-grade, pulp entertainment in my mind.
IronSlug wrote: So, is the show so good it's worth "pollute" my very plesant memory of this reading or not ?
If you enjoyed the books, I do not see much that could satisfy you in the series. The creative team, and I use the term somewhat reluctantly, took an axe, a drill and a saw to the source material. Some bits remain recognizable, but much of the less obvious (and some of the very obvious) supporting structure got removed, to the detriment of the whole experience.
I'd say watch the first episode. If you can stomach what they did to the short story it is based on, you can survive pretty much everything else.
Maybe with the exception of the eels. God damn, those eels were dumb.
AegisGrimm wrote: So as a viewer who has not played the games yet or read the books....are mages and Witchers given incredibly long lives? The timeframe of the show implies it, but never explains.
Yep, mages can slow their aging process to a crawl, and the Witcher mutations give them long life, they tend to die in battle rather than of old age. Geralt and Yen are probably about 80-90 in the TV series in the most recent timeline that they jump between.
Ok, thanks. I assumed that when Yennifer makes an off-hand comment about 30 years being passed, but it sure wasn't given much for exposition. Also, poor points to the writers to not explain any of Geralt's powers to a unlearned viewer. What powers does he have; are they common to all Witchers, or are they unique to him? Are they tied to the potion he drinks? Usually things like that are pretty centrally explained in a main character.
AegisGrimm wrote: Also, poor points to the writers to not explain any of Geralt's powers to a unlearned viewer. What powers does he have; are they common to all Witchers, or are they unique to him? Are they tied to the potion he drinks? Usually things like that are pretty centrally explained in a main character.
From an unlearned viewer point of view that's not really important. I only need to know he has magical abilities due to some mutation that were caused by magic rituals. I don't need a full character sheet with all his abilities listed. I'm watching a show, not playing a game.
His Master's Voice wrote:Maybe with the exception of the eels. God damn, those eels were dumb.
Yeah what was up with the eels? I understand why they got turned into eels, but were the eels to serve a purpose? Because she flicked them into the pool and then the building started to glow. Do the eels help power the building? Do they add their chaos to the ambient energies?
AegisGrimm wrote:Also, poor points to the writers to not explain any of Geralt's powers to a unlearned viewer. What powers does he have; are they common to all Witchers, or are they unique to him? Are they tied to the potion he drinks? Usually things like that are pretty centrally explained in a main character.
For the sake of clarity, Witchers can use things called "signs". In the game they are explained as being a more base version of magic, based loosely around the elements. A couple of examples used in the show is when he fights the striga, he uses Aard (air) to blast the striga away from him. He uses Yrden (spirit) to stop the striga leaving the crypt and again to stop it entering the sarcophagus with him. He later uses Aard when fighting the bandits with Yen.
The game implies that only Witchers know how to use signs, and Triss (I think) express a desire to learn more about them, but gets shut down because she's a mage and signs are "Witchers secrets". I don't know if the books expand on the signs or not.
The potions he drinks have a number of effects, from healing, to boosting endurance and resistances. One lets him see in the dark. Normal potiony type things mostly.
Again, this is one aspect of the show where they cater to people who already have a bit of knowledge of the subject matter. But if you don't then I think you're made to assume that it's the potions he uses.
AegisGrimm wrote: So as a viewer who has not played the games yet or read the books....are mages and Witchers given incredibly long lives? The timeframe of the show implies it, but never explains.
Yep, mages can slow their aging process to a crawl, and the Witcher mutations give them long life, they tend to die in battle rather than of old age. Geralt and Yen are probably about 80-90 in the TV series in the most recent timeline that they jump between.
Ok, thanks. I assumed that when Yennifer makes an off-hand comment about 30 years being passed, but it sure wasn't given much for exposition. Also, poor points to the writers to not explain any of Geralt's powers to a unlearned viewer. What powers does he have; are they common to all Witchers, or are they unique to him? Are they tied to the potion he drinks? Usually things like that are pretty centrally explained in a main character.
I don't think it's overly important. I don't blame them for not explaining it, as fantasy stories can easily get bogged down in the detail when it's sometimes better just to throw people in and let them learn about the lore through the story.
Basically Witchers undergo trials which mutate them, make them sterile, give them the cat like eyes, improved strength/speed, resistance to disease and allow them to take the potions that might kill a normal person. They learn about herbs and how to make those potions that give them temporary enhancements, and learn very basic magic in the form of "signs".
His Master's Voice wrote:Maybe with the exception of the eels. God damn, those eels were dumb.
Yeah what was up with the eels? I understand why they got turned into eels, but were the eels to serve a purpose? Because she flicked them into the pool and then the building started to glow. Do the eels help power the building? Do they add their chaos to the ambient energies?
The people turned into eels were nodes of Chaos power , but they were not strong enough to actually harness and shape that power themselves. Therefore, by turning them into eels, they would still act as a Chaos Power Node for the Rectory, but the Mages within could then shape and channel the Chaos energy produced. They were essentially magical batteries.
They turned them into eels and put them into the pond because they considered it safer than letting them attract Chaos power and not be able to use it properly. This could lead to bad side effects for the people and the area around them.
The quote, "Sometimes, the best thing a flower can do is to die" sums up the philosophy towards these power Chaos nodes with no aptitude for using it. The best thing they can do for the Mages is to be transformed into eels.
Watched the first epsiode and enjoyed - very warhammer fantasy so far.
Bit confused why he slept with the cute killer girl and then went back to kill her but left the wizard - seemed strange, he could of either helped her or just rode away (like he said) but he chose to help the wizard and I can't make out why. Did I miss something?
The blonde princess's grandmother seemed quite young.
Mr Morden wrote: Bit confused why he slept with the cute killer girl and then went back to kill her but left the wizard - seemed strange, he could of either helped her or just rode away (like he said) but he chose to help the wizard and I can't make out why. Did I miss something?
Yeah, I got to admit that it was a bit weird. I suppose he thought he could still talk her out of her revenge or maybe it was a bit of fanservice and wish fullfilment fantasy. It's a cute girl, why wouldn't the hero sex her up?
The blonde princess's grandmother seemed quite young.
Then again. If she married and had her first child in her teens and that her daughter did the same, which is entirely possible. That would make her grandmother before she hits 40 and about in her early/mid 50 at the time ofher death. It's also the same actress without any makeup that plays her ten fifteen years in the past. There is a bit of movie logic there.
Bit confused why he slept with the cute killer girl and then went back to kill her but left the wizard - seemed strange, he could of either helped her or just rode away (like he said) but he chose to help the wizard and I can't make out why. Did I miss something?
She seduced him and drugged him. Geralt is also notorious horndog. You see him with a prostitute later, and in the games he has a reputation for being a lecher. Turns out when you're sterile and practically immune to all diseases there's not really any reason to not sleep around.
He killed Renfri because she was going to slaughter everyone in town until Stregebor shows up. Geralt couldn't let that happen. He didn't help the wizard, he helped the people. However, the people didn't know that they were in danger, and thought that Geralt just murdered a bunch of people for no reason, even though those people were bandits.
His Master's Voice wrote:Maybe with the exception of the eels. God damn, those eels were dumb.
Yeah what was up with the eels? I understand why they got turned into eels, but were the eels to serve a purpose? Because she flicked them into the pool and then the building started to glow. Do the eels help power the building? Do they add their chaos to the ambient energies?
They're basically living magical batteries. You find out more later on.
Yeah I mean he went to see creepy wizard, who admits to killing girls and cutting them up, "yeah they were dead" wink wink - refuses to help him cos does not want to commit evil to foil evil.
Cute girl chats to him, they make a connection, have lots of common, have sex and then he decides to ride into town to (stop her? not sure what his motivation was), her men warn him off so he slaughters them and then finally when she turns up kills her (knocking her out being beyond him even when he has defeated her) because..........
The wizard seems no less evil than the killer girl but he takes his side.
Then he gets all upset when the creepy wizard turns up and wants to slice her open - but still does not kill him or even bash a few people and walk out with her body to burn it. Yeah lots of villagers - but he has just slaughtered all the hard men on his own without really breaking sweat.
Just seemed odd - see what the next few episodes are like.
She seduced him and drugged him. Geralt is also notorious horndog. You see him with a prostitute later, and in the games he has a reputation for being a lecher. Turns out when you're sterile and practically immune to all diseases there's not really any reason to not sleep around. He killed Renfri because she was going to slaughter everyone in town until Stregebor shows up. Geralt couldn't let that happen. He didn't help the wizard, he helped the people. However, the people didn't know that they were in danger, and thought that Geralt just murdered a bunch of people for no reason, even though those people were bandits.
Seduced - yeah but as you say he was not ever saying no and seducing someone who is willing is just not an evil thing - Missed him being drugged - unless that was to stop him interfering.
Well if you are immune does not mean you don;t transmit diseases...
Didn't Renfri tell Geralt what she was going to do when he was drugged? There was a weird dream sequence where she told him about the market place.
The show gets better after episode 3, really. The early episodes are a bit of a drag. It does do this really annoying thing throughout the show where they jump around the timeline so it takes a while to work out the chronology of it all. You'll find out what I mean later.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Didn't Renfri tell Geralt what she was going to do when he was drugged? There was a weird dream sequence where she told him about the market place.
Sort of but it was mixed up with the girl in the woods is you destiny, I just figured that they both had a good night and he was having plot driven dreams.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Didn't Renfri tell Geralt what she was going to do when he was drugged? There was a weird dream sequence where she told him about the market place.
The show gets better after episode 3, really. The early episodes are a bit of a drag. It does do this really annoying thing throughout the show where they jump around the timeline so it takes a while to work out the chronology of it all. You'll find out what I mean later.
Huh, I felt the exact opposite. I thought the first 3 episodes were good, and the rest were a bit by-the-numbers.
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
no because she's dead. the game takes place after the events of the books. However another girl whom is cursed under the black sun does apper in the game
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Her death is decades in the past by the time the events of the games take place. The short story in which she appears is one of the first that Sapkowski got published.
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Nah, the games take place long after the Blaviken incident. There are references to it; in one of the games you can intimidate someone by revealing that you (Geralt) is the Butcher of Blaviken.
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Nah, the games take place long after the Blaviken incident. There are references to it; in one of the games you can intimidate someone by revealing that you (Geralt) is the Butcher of Blaviken.
Geralt getting that "Butcher..." title always made me scratch my head - I mean he took out a half dozen murderous thugs in Blaviken for pretty good reasons so what was the big deal especially in such a dark and gritty setting. Also when you are playing the games and have probably slaughtered 1000-odd humans in the countryside and elsewhere who stupidly are hostile to you and you have no choice but to kill. Its like "GRRR IM THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN.. FEAR ME" and also hey I just took out like 30 morons in that bandit fort about 100 feet away five minutes ago lol.....
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Nah, the games take place long after the Blaviken incident. There are references to it; in one of the games you can intimidate someone by revealing that you (Geralt) is the Butcher of Blaviken.
Geralt getting that "Butcher..." title always made me scratch my head - I mean he took out a half dozen murderous thugs in Blaviken for pretty good reasons so what was the big deal especially in such a dark and gritty setting. Also when you are playing the games and have probably slaughtered 1000-odd humans in the countryside and elsewhere who stupidly are hostile to you and you have no choice but to kill. Its like "GRRR IM THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN.. FEAR ME" and also hey I just took out like 30 morons in that bandit fort about 100 feet away five minutes ago lol.....
It's humans vs other.
Some mutant killed a dozen humans in the middle of the town of Blaviken. The humans remember that something that was not them killed a bunch of people.
BrianDavion wrote: Incidently the short story is worth reading, it's MUCH MUCH better then the netflix version
Thanks - I might well check that out.
Some mutant killed a dozen humans in the middle of the town of Blaviken. The humans remember that something that was not them killed a bunch of people.
I thought the bunch of people (bandits) were lead by a much feared killer and possible mutant/harbringer of the aploclypse if you believe dodgy wizards.
BrianDavion wrote: Incidently the short story is worth reading, it's MUCH MUCH better then the netflix version
Thanks - I might well check that out.
Some mutant killed a dozen humans in the middle of the town of Blaviken. The humans remember that something that was not them killed a bunch of people.
I thought the bunch of people (bandits) were lead by a much feared killer and possible mutant/harbringer of the aploclypse if you believe dodgy wizards.
She was a human doing bad things. The dodgy wizard told Geralt about it. The wizard didn't go around telling the whole town about it. Especially clear when he threatens Geralt.
Well, watched it a second time (kinda, was painting) and I’m fiending for season 2.
Also at the previous recommendations of some posters that I generally agree with and respect, I started playing Witcher 3. I’m not sure what I was into when it first dropped, most likely a Total War game had my full attention, but holy feth have I been missing out. Loving it. Its grabbed ahold of me like how I wished Red Dead Redemption 2 did.
And in game, seeing Nilfgard armor portrayed there and how its portrayed in the show boggles my mind further. It was weird to look at and I just said ‘fantasy world- doesn’t have to make sense’, as well as assumed it was just a visual device to portray them as the “outsiders” or some such. But it would have been so much better if they followed the games lead. What a weird decision to make.
nels1031 wrote: Well, watched it a second time (kinda, was painting) and I’m fiending for season 2.
Also at the previous recommendations of some posters that I generally agree with and respect, I started playing Witcher 3. I’m not sure what I was into when it first dropped, most likely a Total War game had my full attention, but holy feth have I been missing out. Loving it. Its grabbed ahold of me like how I wished Red Dead Redemption 2 did.
I am so jealous of you! The first time was so magical...
In the end, I felt I was cheating on my wife a bit, because I was longing so much for Yennefer to appear again in the DLC.
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Nah, the games take place long after the Blaviken incident. There are references to it; in one of the games you can intimidate someone by revealing that you (Geralt) is the Butcher of Blaviken.
Geralt getting that "Butcher..." title always made me scratch my head - I mean he took out a half dozen murderous thugs in Blaviken for pretty good reasons so what was the big deal especially in such a dark and gritty setting. Also when you are playing the games and have probably slaughtered 1000-odd humans in the countryside and elsewhere who stupidly are hostile to you and you have no choice but to kill. Its like "GRRR IM THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN.. FEAR ME" and also hey I just took out like 30 morons in that bandit fort about 100 feet away five minutes ago lol.....
Because the villagers didn't know they were bandits. They thought they were just ordinary people.
If you lived in a small village and you saw some mutant brutally kill 6 people, you'd think he was a monster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nels1031 wrote: Well, watched it a second time (kinda, was painting) and I’m fiending for season 2.
Also at the previous recommendations of some posters that I generally agree with and respect, I started playing Witcher 3. I’m not sure what I was into when it first dropped, most likely a Total War game had my full attention, but holy feth have I been missing out. Loving it. Its grabbed ahold of me like how I wished Red Dead Redemption 2 did.
And in game, seeing Nilfgard armor portrayed there and how its portrayed in the show boggles my mind further. It was weird to look at and I just said ‘fantasy world- doesn’t have to make sense’, as well as assumed it was just a visual device to portray them as the “outsiders” or some such. But it would have been so much better if they followed the games lead. What a weird decision to make.
Yeah, I dunno why they the showrunners had Nilfgaard armor look like that. It doesn't look like metal, it looks plastic.
In the games they wore proper black plate.
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Nah, the games take place long after the Blaviken incident. There are references to it; in one of the games you can intimidate someone by revealing that you (Geralt) is the Butcher of Blaviken.
Geralt getting that "Butcher..." title always made me scratch my head - I mean he took out a half dozen murderous thugs in Blaviken for pretty good reasons so what was the big deal especially in such a dark and gritty setting. Also when you are playing the games and have probably slaughtered 1000-odd humans in the countryside and elsewhere who stupidly are hostile to you and you have no choice but to kill. Its like "GRRR IM THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN.. FEAR ME" and also hey I just took out like 30 morons in that bandit fort about 100 feet away five minutes ago lol.....
Because the villagers didn't know they were bandits. They thought they were just ordinary people.
If you lived in a small village and you saw some mutant brutally kill 6 people, you'd think he was a monster.
Ordinary medieval people don't carry swords or wear armour - especially special blades like the leader guy had.
Sorry but if you live in a small village and a bunch of well armed killers turn up you have a pretty good idea of what they are, they can be little else in a medeival world - they are not retainers and mercenaries and bandits are pretty much the same thing. What else could they be?
Watched it again tonight and it does look like the dodgy wizard is influencing the actual villagers - they follow his directions pretty quickly - almost as if its scripted and the young girl warns Gerit not to return to the village.
There are a lot of real world styles of armor. Nilfgard could easily just used a different cultures style of armor as a influence in their design. More scale mail or ring mail would have been good.
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Nah, the games take place long after the Blaviken incident. There are references to it; in one of the games you can intimidate someone by revealing that you (Geralt) is the Butcher of Blaviken.
Geralt getting that "Butcher..." title always made me scratch my head - I mean he took out a half dozen murderous thugs in Blaviken for pretty good reasons so what was the big deal especially in such a dark and gritty setting. Also when you are playing the games and have probably slaughtered 1000-odd humans in the countryside and elsewhere who stupidly are hostile to you and you have no choice but to kill. Its like "GRRR IM THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN.. FEAR ME" and also hey I just took out like 30 morons in that bandit fort about 100 feet away five minutes ago lol.....
Because the villagers didn't know they were bandits. They thought they were just ordinary people.
If you lived in a small village and you saw some mutant brutally kill 6 people, you'd think he was a monster.
Ordinary medieval people don't carry swords or wear armour - especially special blades like the leader guy had.
Sorry but if you live in a small village and a bunch of well armed killers turn up you have a pretty good idea of what they are, they can be little else in a medeival world - they are not retainers and mercenaries and bandits are pretty much the same thing. What else could they be?
Watched it again tonight and it does look like the dodgy wizard is influencing the actual villagers - they follow his directions pretty quickly - almost as if its scripted and the young girl warns Gerit not to return to the village.
also keep in mind Geralt had prejudice working against him as well. Witchers are the subject of prejudice, they're seen as emotion stripped monsters, less then human etc.
Consider some of the gross miscarriages of justice we've seen in real life due to prejudice (such as any number of events regarding black people in the deep south in the 30s etc) it's suddenly a lot easier to belive that the townsfolk thought Geralt was the party in the wrong here doesn't it?
Mr Morden wrote: Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.
Nah, the games take place long after the Blaviken incident. There are references to it; in one of the games you can intimidate someone by revealing that you (Geralt) is the Butcher of Blaviken.
Geralt getting that "Butcher..." title always made me scratch my head - I mean he took out a half dozen murderous thugs in Blaviken for pretty good reasons so what was the big deal especially in such a dark and gritty setting. Also when you are playing the games and have probably slaughtered 1000-odd humans in the countryside and elsewhere who stupidly are hostile to you and you have no choice but to kill. Its like "GRRR IM THE BUTCHER OF BLAVIKEN.. FEAR ME" and also hey I just took out like 30 morons in that bandit fort about 100 feet away five minutes ago lol.....
Because the villagers didn't know they were bandits. They thought they were just ordinary people.
If you lived in a small village and you saw some mutant brutally kill 6 people, you'd think he was a monster.
Ordinary medieval people don't carry swords or wear armour - especially special blades like the leader guy had.
Sorry but if you live in a small village and a bunch of well armed killers turn up you have a pretty good idea of what they are, they can be little else in a medeival world - they are not retainers and mercenaries and bandits are pretty much the same thing. What else could they be?
Watched it again tonight and it does look like the dodgy wizard is influencing the actual villagers - they follow his directions pretty quickly - almost as if its scripted and the young girl warns Gerit not to return to the village.
also keep in mind Geralt had prejudice working against him as well. Witchers are the subject of prejudice, they're seen as emotion stripped monsters, less then human etc.
Consider some of the gross miscarriages of justice we've seen in real life due to prejudice (such as any number of events regarding black people in the deep south in the 30s etc) it's suddenly a lot easier to belive that the townsfolk thought Geralt was the party in the wrong here doesn't it?
Its not quite the same - I agree that they see him as evil - but this is well used by the wizard, whose powers of suggestion seem potent - they quickly obey his every word - the lesser evil again may come into play.
BUT - he is not just some poor oppressed minority, he is a fully armed and armoured "Monster" who has just slaughtered likely the only armed people in the village or at least those who have any notable skill with them. He did it in moments and they likely watched. I doubt they would have done anything after that until the Wizard pushed them. If he had been less "conflicted" that mob would have been disperesed in moments with more bodies littering the street.
Anyway lookng forward to watching some more - just hoping that more people I like survive - the piece in the court with the royal family knighting people was well done.
so watched the 2nd episode and it was..........dull. The magic training stuff was not bad but the rest ......ugh.unconvinicing haffling elves and fauns, do they have budget problems?
Easy E wrote: Gerald did not WANT to kill all the villagers. The whole theme of the episode comes to a head in that scene.
Er yeah I know that but the predujiced villagers who hate mutants don;t know that - they saw him slaughter a band of well armed men without breaking sweat - it was only the girl who even cut him.
I noted the evil wizard is part of the magic school as well, guess it makes a change for cutting up girls and having princesses raped in woods...
I saw an accurate statement that called the Witcher Fantasy Noir.
That is a very good way to look at it. It's a world filled with bad people and the hero isn't really a great person themselves they are just the least worst person you see.
BUT - he is not just some poor oppressed minority, he is a fully armed and armoured "Monster" who has just slaughtered likely the only armed people in the village or at least those who have any notable skill with them.
The townsfolk tried to get rid of him right in the beginning of the episode, long before he killed the bandits. The dude said something along the lines of “get out, we don’t want your kind around here” when all he wants is directions to the alderman.
BUT - he is not just some poor oppressed minority, he is a fully armed and armoured "Monster" who has just slaughtered likely the only armed people in the village or at least those who have any notable skill with them.
The townsfolk tried to get rid of him right in the beginning of the episode, long before he killed the bandits. The dude said something along the lines of “get out, we don’t want your kind around here” when all he wants is directions to the alderman.
With the initial backing of the Bandits....until their boss overules them - and then they just give him dirty looks. He wonders through the village with the girl t the Wizards.
No villager dares do a thing to him. Cos he is a dangerous magic using mutant with a big sword and then he slaughters the bandits. No one does anything in the last scene until the Wizard tells them to.- you can see they just follow his instructions - almost like .....magic.
Four episodes in and enjoying it so far. Most deviations from the books were done in an understandable / good enough fashion. If the rest of the episodes are as good I'll be happy.
One minor nitpick I disliked from episode 4:
Spoiler:
In the short story, Queen Calanthe tricked Duny into removing his helmet by having someone ring the bell early making him think he was safe to remove it. Here Eist just flicks it off and scoffs at knightly vows. I actually like the way they did it just fine, it is just that I liked the quiet cunning of Calanthe in the original a little bit more.
With all this talk on Blaviken, I just kind of want to pipe in:
The Show:
Spoiler:
In the show, he walks into town, offs 7 trained fighters, and then Stregobor, the trusted wizard of the town turns the villagers against him. It is a trusted authority figure feeding into the villager's preset prejudices that makes the crowd force him out of town.
Stregobor also takes advantage of Geralt's guilt at what he just did to make sure he doesn't have a chance to come up with a reply. Geralt made a choice, and is realizing for better or worse he has to live with it, and as he isn't a monster, he will not kill a bunch of people for nothing.
The Book:
Spoiler:
The show kind of poorly explains this, but the whole talk of ultimatums was because Renfri planned to give Stregobor an ultimatum: surrender to her so she could torture him to death, or she will kill everyone in the town (sidenote: Stregobor just laughs and tells her to have fun killing helpless civilians while he sits perfectly safe in his tower). Geralt realizes this and rushes to the marketplace, to find her jolly band waiting and unwilling to back down. The fight happens, and Stregobor just thanks Geralt and then leaves, as he is just happy to not have to hide anymore.
The issue with the town is that he A) killed a bunch of people, and the people living there did not know of the ultimatum and did not give Geralt time to try to explain the killing, and B) killed a bunch of people who had a writ from the king, saying they were to be obeyed and not to be impeded in whatever duty they had going on. The Alderman, who was a friend of Geralt's prior to the mess, tells him to leave and never come back and the rest is history, word of mouth travel, and rumors.
It seems like she is basically committing suicide, she knows at that point that killing the villagers won’t get Stregabor to come down, but it also seems like she knows she isn’t going to beat Geralt in a fight and chooses to fight anyway, even though Geralt gave her plenty of opportunity to walk away.
But yeah, in the book it clearly happens with the townsfolk watching and Stregabor doesn’t have anything to do with the crowd turning against him.
It seems like she is basically committing suicide, she knows at that point that killing the villagers won’t get Stregabor to come down, but it also seems like she knows she isn’t going to beat Geralt in a fight and chooses to fight anyway, even though Geralt gave her plenty of opportunity to walk away.
But yeah, in the book it clearly happens with the townsfolk watching and Stregabor doesn’t have anything to do with the crowd turning against him.
Spoiler:
Its mostly about her inability to let go of her white whale (her vendetta against Stregabor). For better or worse it consumed her life, and she has to see it through, even if it means her death. There's certainly some subtext about Geralt being the first person to treat her like an actual person, despite all the dark deeds she's done, and that by dying at his hand she finds a release she couldnt consciously choose for herself, but I personally dont see that as her primary motivation in choosing a fight she knows she cant win
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I did like the actress that played Renfri, shame we likely won’t see more of her.
Spoiler:
She's already come to Geralt as visions more than once. No reason that cant happen again. She's been established as one of the voices his subconscious takes, so I'd personally argue its more likely than not.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I did like the actress that played Renfri, shame we likely won’t see more of her.
Spoiler:
She's already come to Geralt as visions more than once. No reason that cant happen again. She's been established as one of the voices his subconscious takes, so I'd personally argue its more likely than not.
Spoiler for last episode:
Spoiler:
It seemed the visions mostly related to meeting Ciri, which has happened now so I'd be surprised if they keep going back to Renfri visions in the next season/s.
It seemed the visions mostly related to meeting Ciri, which has happened now so I'd be surprised if they keep going back to Renfri visions in the next season/s.
Spoiler:
In the hallucination after the Nekker attack, Renfri is one of the women who came to Geralt and set additional things in motion for season 2. It's subtle, and very quick, but it was more than just refreshing her "the girl in the woods" line from ep1.
Not remotely saying its a 100% gonna happen thing by any means, but the hook is there if the team wants to pull on it. And frankly, given that Geralt spent most of S1 (unsuccessfully) getting over Renfri (dude forged her broach into his sword after all), its a hook I do hope they pull on.
It seems like she is basically committing suicide, she knows at that point that killing the villagers won’t get Stregabor to come down, but it also seems like she knows she isn’t going to beat Geralt in a fight and chooses to fight anyway, even though Geralt gave her plenty of opportunity to walk away.
But yeah, in the book it clearly happens with the townsfolk watching and Stregabor doesn’t have anything to do with the crowd turning against him.
Spoiler:
Its mostly about her inability to let go of her white whale (her vendetta against Stregabor). For better or worse it consumed her life, and she has to see it through, even if it means her death. There's certainly some subtext about Geralt being the first person to treat her like an actual person, despite all the dark deeds she's done, and that by dying at his hand she finds a release she couldnt consciously choose for herself, but I personally dont see that as her primary motivation in choosing a fight she knows she cant win
Renfri was a great character (in both the books and series) because there's no question she was not exactly a good person, but the question was, was it her nature or was it the gak life that donkey-caves like Stegabor forced on her for simply being "born under a bad star" CDPR seems pretty fascinated with that question too having tackled the subject on two seperate occasions. (once in a module for witcher 1, and once in witcher 3's blood and wine DLC)
BrianDavion wrote: Renfri was a great character (in both the books and series) because there's no question she was not exactly a good person, but the question was, was it her nature or was it the gak life that donkey-caves like Stegabor forced on her for simply being "born under a bad star" CDPR seems pretty fascinated with that question too having tackled the subject on two seperate occasions. (once in a module for witcher 1, and once in witcher 3's blood and wine DLC)
This, in my opinion was completely undermined in the series by making her undoubtedly mutant by making her immune to magic. This gives a lot of weight to Stegobor's theory of every girls born under the eclipse to be monsters destined to destroy the world. In fact she displays everything that the mage said she should display. She's a "stealth mutant" with inhumane powers, she's born with a thirst for violence and she's a natural born leader whose up to no good. In the show, she displays great leadership skills in controlling her thugs and the villagers up to a certain point, cannot let go of her murderous plans even if they don't make sense, is mysteriously immune to magic and and can keep up with the superhuman witcher in single combat. What other proofs to you need to believe Stegobor, a sign letter from the evil goddess of the night that she is indeed her minion? The choice was obvious and easy to make.
They never showed her being resistant to magic. They only said that she was and the only person to say she was was Stregobor.
The thing that gets brought up about children born under the black star (black sun?) is that BECAUSE of the myth they are mistreated by people all around them peasants and servants shun them, children are not allowed to play with or speak to them. They are raised in sad lonely worlds because of the day and time they were born. Because they are ostracized and mistreated they tend to lash out. So what came first the chicken or the egg? Is the child bad so people mistreat them? Or do people mistreat them because of a myth and they act according to their nurture?
It's never really answered. Geralt believes more of the second because he has never seen definitive proof of the first.
Lance845 wrote: They never showed her being resistant to magic. They only said that she was and the only person to say she was was Stregobor.
She also said it to Geralt when they were about to fight and he was considering using a spell against her. Plus, her immunity to magic is essential as to why Stregobor can't actually handle her by himself like he did for all the other girls. If it wasn't true why ask another guy to do his business it's not like lazyness stopped him for the others?
The thing that gets brought up about children born under the black star (black sun?) is that BECAUSE of the myth they are mistreated by people all around them peasants and servants shun them, children are not allowed to play with or speak to them. They are raised in sad lonely worlds because of the day and time they were born. Because they are ostracized and mistreated they tend to lash out. So what came first the chicken or the egg? Is the child bad so people mistreat them? Or do people mistreat them because of a myth and they act according to their nurture?
Having a terrible childhood doesn't make you a mass murderer either especially not when you are in a situation where you can easily escape your predicament, find support from other people (Geralt in that case). There are far more children with terribly abusive parents and childhood that don't become mass murderers than the opposite. If "bad childhood" can be considered a very common cause for such behavior it's not a complete excuse. Add the fact that she does shows signs that the prophecy isn't bollock like her surprising leadership skills, her resistence to magic, her incredible talent for violence, etc and I think you have proof beyond reasonnable doubt that Stregobor tells the truth.
I don't know in the books, but in the show, the audience is in a situation where one side is obviously correct though the hero doesn't seem to be able to recognise it and the audience is expected to follow the protagonist lead because Stregobor is a sleazy man who seem insolently carefree while Renfri is a ridiculous attractive doe-eyed woman whom we want to believe because she's just that stunning. The scenario isn't about "lesser evil" or "two bad choice", this is a poorly disguised illusion. The scenario is about deceiving appearences.
She definately claims she is resistant to magic - not sure why she can't walk into the tower then?
The only person in the show who actually claims she is evil is the def dodgy mage who cuts up girls - "yeah totally when they are dead - wink wink"....
Same dodgy wizard claims her stepmother said she was an evil child - but no confirmation and it might be a step mother that wants rid of an obsticle to her own children Snow White style
She actually does swear by Lilit at one point but no reaction from the Witcher so assume its just a saying.
She says that the wizards henchman abducts and rapes her - the dodgy wizard says what happened was "unfortunate" so seems likely
She has a bunch of (bandits?) that are incredably loyal to her - to the death.
She says she will kill the girl helping the wizard (who seems to be quite keen on killing herself) but then doesn't - seems to be a bluff - we never see her kill anyone.
For some unknown reason she tries to get herself killed by telling the Witcher what she is going to do instead of just letting him ride off and gettin on with her venegance
The Witcher could have knocked her out when he first won the fight
The villagers obey the wizard immediately she is gone - ironically he then claims she is the one who influences people but also, comic book villian style taunts the Witcher by saying he may have made the wrong choice not to help her The girl tells the Witcher to get away whilst he can - implying that she can't
The dodgy wizard can't wait to slice her open
If the show had then had him kill the wizard as well that would have been more satisfying.
Lance845 wrote: They never showed her being resistant to magic. They only said that she was and the only person to say she was was Stregobor.
She also said it to Geralt when they were about to fight and he was considering using a spell against her. Plus, her immunity to magic is essential as to why Stregobor can't actually handle her by himself like he did for all the other girls. If it wasn't true why ask another guy to do his business it's not like lazyness stopped him for the others?
She said what she had always been told. Stregobor said what he actually believed (because he full on believes in the curse). Again, you never actually SEE it.
The thing that gets brought up about children born under the black star (black sun?) is that BECAUSE of the myth they are mistreated by people all around them peasants and servants shun them, children are not allowed to play with or speak to them. They are raised in sad lonely worlds because of the day and time they were born. Because they are ostracized and mistreated they tend to lash out. So what came first the chicken or the egg? Is the child bad so people mistreat them? Or do people mistreat them because of a myth and they act according to their nurture?
Having a terrible childhood doesn't make you a mass murderer either especially not when you are in a situation where you can easily escape your predicament, find support from other people (Geralt in that case). There are far more children with terribly abusive parents and childhood that don't become mass murderers than the opposite. If "bad childhood" can be considered a very common cause for such behavior it's not a complete excuse. Add the fact that she does shows signs that the prophecy isn't bollock like her surprising leadership skills, her resistence to magic, her incredible talent for violence, etc and I think you have proof beyond reasonnable doubt that Stregobor tells the truth.
I don't know in the books, but in the show, the audience is in a situation where one side is obviously correct though the hero doesn't seem to be able to recognise it and the audience is expected to follow the protagonist lead because Stregobor is a sleazy man who seem insolently carefree while Renfri is a ridiculous attractive doe-eyed woman whom we want to believe because she's just that stunning. The scenario isn't about "lesser evil" or "two bad choice", this is a poorly disguised illusion. The scenario is about deceiving appearences.
Renfris skills are a result of her life outside the castle and struggling to survive every day. Being a leader isn't the result of a curse, neither is knowing how to fight.
except this isn't abusive parents this is waaaay more then that. she's treated horriably as a child, and yes that can do some real damage (especially as if you're told all your life you're an evil monster there is a temptation to say "feth it" and just BE THE EVIL MONSTER. the fact that he's atopsy'd all the girls and still sees a point to it (combined with a later episode showing other wizards bashing hium for cutting open young girls,) suggests to me he's not exactly discovered any definate proof.
So imagine your childhood is gak, and your lfie is destroyed, you manage to survive and fall in with some bandits, whom, suprise you by being more decent men then the so called nobles you knew.
but the one thing that keeps you going, the one thing that has stopped you from just killing yourself and making the pain stop, has been one day you will get your vengence on the son of a bitch who destroyed your life and the lives of god knows how many others like you.
yeaaah renfri makes sense. not saying she's right (the point of the story is that neither side WAS right and Geralt was forced to choose the lesser evil) but I can understand the character, no need for a fancy curse etc. she makes sense without.
BrianDavion wrote: Renfri was a great character (in both the books and series) because there's no question she was not exactly a good person, but the question was, was it her nature or was it the gak life that donkey-caves like Stegabor forced on her for simply being "born under a bad star" CDPR seems pretty fascinated with that question too having tackled the subject on two seperate occasions. (once in a module for witcher 1, and once in witcher 3's blood and wine DLC)
This, in my opinion was completely undermined in the series by making her undoubtedly mutant by making her immune to magic. This gives a lot of weight to Stegobor's theory of every girls born under the eclipse to be monsters destined to destroy the world. In fact she displays everything that the mage said she should display. She's a "stealth mutant" with inhumane powers, she's born with a thirst for violence and she's a natural born leader whose up to no good. In the show, she displays great leadership skills in controlling her thugs and the villagers up to a certain point, cannot let go of her murderous plans even if they don't make sense, is mysteriously immune to magic and and can keep up with the superhuman witcher in single combat. What other proofs to you need to believe Stegobor, a sign letter from the evil goddess of the night that she is indeed her minion? The choice was obvious and easy to make.
In what way was she keeping up with Geralt? I just rewatched the scene and he has her 3 times, and stops, to give her a chance to give up. Each time she keeps fighting and tries to sucker punch him, and on the fourth time he finally kills her. This is in a 1 minute fight sequence.
So, I just watched episode five, and it was good, but it was sad they took out the best parts:
Book Spoilers
Spoiler:
Dandelion and Geralt are actually there fishing and accidentally find the djinn. Geralt uses an incantation to chase the thing off, and feels super smart about it. Anytime he tells people in the know what incantation he used, they give a chuckle until someone finally tells him what the fancy phrase he learned from a priest was.
Lance845 wrote: She said what she had always been told. Stregobor said what he actually believed (because he full on believes in the curse). Again, you never actually SEE it.
The why didn't Stregobor snapped his figgers and killed her instentaneously? He is a powerful mage and has to be assumed to be well within his capacity since every other mage of his rank and even lower are capable of killing dozens of people easily. The entire premise of the scenario relies on the fact that a powerful mage can't kill 8 bandits and his target by himself and the reason presented for why he can't do that was "she's immune to magic".
I msut also note that Stregobor wasn't caught lying at any point. He presented his version of the events and his beliefs; Renfri then did the same. At that point there isn't any way to assert the truth. She seems more convincing, but might just be a good liar and manipulator. The only thing we know for sure is that Renfri lied in a very obvious manner once when she said to Geralt she would leave Blaviken. Stregobor told no obvious lies at most he hid some information for example that the last man he paid to kill her raped her instead of killing his mark, but didn't deny it when it was brought to him.
Lance845 wrote: She said what she had always been told. Stregobor said what he actually believed (because he full on believes in the curse). Again, you never actually SEE it.
The why didn't Stregobor snapped his figgers and killed her instentaneously? He is a powerful mage and has to be assumed to be well within his capacity since every other mage of his rank and even lower are capable of killing dozens of people easily. The entire premise of the scenario relies on the fact that a powerful mage can't kill 8 bandits and his target by himself and the reason presented for why he can't do that was "she's immune to magic".
I msut also note that Stregobor wasn't caught lying at any point. He presented his version of the events and his beliefs; Renfri then did the same. At that point there isn't any way to assert the truth. She seems more convincing, but might just be a good liar and manipulator. The only thing we know for sure is that Renfri lied in a very obvious manner once when she said to Geralt she would leave Blaviken. Stregobor told no obvious lies at most he hid some information for example that the last man he paid to kill her raped her instead of killing his mark, but didn't deny it when it was brought to him.
1) As shown throughout Yens story, no magic is free. Nobody can just snap their fingers and kill anyone. It all comes with cost.
2) Real or not Stregobor believes in the curse and HE thinks she is resistant to magic.
3) As you say, there is no way to assert the truth. As I said, Geralt doesn't believe in it because he has never seen hard evidence of it. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's always presented in all Witcher material that nobody is sure if the curse is real or not. There COULD be a curse, or there could just be a bunch of kids who spend their lives told they are monsters and tortured or killed because their birthday happened to be on a "bad day", Even if there is a curse it just means these people are victims of circumstance who have cruelty heaped upon them because of chance. Nobody attempts to break the curse. They just ruin their lives.
1) As shown throughout Yens story, no magic is free. Nobody can just snap their fingers and kill anyone. It all comes with cost.
A very small cost considering that weaker mages can kill dozens of people. Considering his status in their council, we are to assume Stregobor has ways to kill people. Plus considering that he believes Renfri is the last girl who can bring down the apocalypse, I'm pretty sure the man is totally willing of killing someone innocent to cast a spell that would obliterate her and her small gang if need be. It seems to be both within character and within his reach. He casted permanent illusion spells and one can only enter his tower through a magic door. Stregobor isn't strapped of magical resources at all.
2) Real or not Stregobor believes in the curse and HE thinks she is resistant to magic.
The curse doesn't specify that the girls will be immune to magic only that they will be mutants (thus all the talk about internal mutations which Stregobor says the 49 other girls were). Renfri's immunity to magic which Stregobor believes, Renfri beleives and apparently Geralt believes as he decides not to through his push-back spell on her when she reminds him she is immune to magic. Where does this idea that he didn't try to kill her by his own means first? He clearly did so with 59 other girls before. I think it's hard to believe that in the couple of years where Renfri tried to kill Stregobor and him her, he didn't try to cast one spell on her at any point.
3) As you say, there is no way to assert the truth. As I said, Geralt doesn't believe in it because he has never seen hard evidence of it. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's always presented in all Witcher material that nobody is sure if the curse is real or not. There COULD be a curse, or there could just be a bunch of kids who spend their lives told they are monsters and tortured or killed because their birthday happened to be on a "bad day", Even if there is a curse it just means these people are victims of circumstance who have cruelty heaped upon them because of chance. Nobody attempts to break the curse. They just ruin their lives.
There is indeed no way to assert the truth with a 100% accuracy but when a man says there is an ancient prophecy that declares that 60 girls born under a total solar eclipse and from royal families will be born with horrible mutations and drown the world in blood. Renfri was a princess and described has possessing mutant powers. She was born on that day and certainly has a great talent for bloodshed. She is the second best fighter in the show so far and is a very successful bandit and murderer. These are pretty solid circumstantial evidences there. Ironically, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy where people hatred nurture the violence and hatred inate in the girls until they germinate in genocidal monster bent on revenge against the world itself, but that's another impossible to verify theory and pointless to the moral dilemma at Geralt's feets. He can't wind back the clock to try to change how things were. He can only do something now. What is certain is that Renfri is a killer hellbent on revenge that would sooner die than let go of her hatred even when offered a chance at a real life with the genuine affection of someone else to help it. She is ready to kill anybody and anything even a man she seems to have genuine affection for if it would kill Stregobor. She's exactly the kind of women mentionned in the prophecy. This all seems to point toward the fact that Stregobor is fundamentally correct in his assesment. How, in those circumstances, is killing her a hard choice? It might be a slightly sad choice for what Renfri could have been, but even then maybe that was destiny too. It seems to be the recurring theme of the season: you can't fight against destiny.
One thing that the series doesn't do quite as good a job at but the books do a pretty good job at doing is noting that the old fairy tales etc that are out there...
Are bs. not all of em and some have a foundation in truth, but eneugh that Geralt will role his eyes when he hears the words "prophecy". "I don't belive in prophecy or destiny" is a pretty major part of his character arc in the first season. even when HE is tangled up in it.
Quite liked the series. Didn't find the time jumps confusing at all, it was just 3 storylines that give the world a sense of history as they converge. I will say the first episode feels very disjointed. Renfri's story doesn't make for the best introduction, particularly as a parallel to Ciri's plight. I get what they're going for, but it felt like there was probably a better way to get across the "hated by humanity" prior to doing the Butcher origin.
Still, it was a well done series and great to see the series brought to life. My wife, who's tolerance for fantasy can hit a hard stop was enthralled to the end. Looking forward to more.
1) As shown throughout Yens story, no magic is free. Nobody can just snap their fingers and kill anyone. It all comes with cost.
A very small cost considering that weaker mages can kill dozens of people. Considering his status in their council, we are to assume Stregobor has ways to kill people. Plus considering that he believes Renfri is the last girl who can bring down the apocalypse, I'm pretty sure the man is totally willing of killing someone innocent to cast a spell that would obliterate her and her small gang if need be. It seems to be both within character and within his reach. He casted permanent illusion spells and one can only enter his tower through a magic door. Stregobor isn't strapped of magical resources at all.
2) Real or not Stregobor believes in the curse and HE thinks she is resistant to magic.
The curse doesn't specify that the girls will be immune to magic only that they will be mutants (thus all the talk about internal mutations which Stregobor says the 49 other girls were). Renfri's immunity to magic which Stregobor believes, Renfri beleives and apparently Geralt believes as he decides not to through his push-back spell on her when she reminds him she is immune to magic. Where does this idea that he didn't try to kill her by his own means first? He clearly did so with 59 other girls before. I think it's hard to believe that in the couple of years where Renfri tried to kill Stregobor and him her, he didn't try to cast one spell on her at any point.
3) As you say, there is no way to assert the truth. As I said, Geralt doesn't believe in it because he has never seen hard evidence of it. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's always presented in all Witcher material that nobody is sure if the curse is real or not. There COULD be a curse, or there could just be a bunch of kids who spend their lives told they are monsters and tortured or killed because their birthday happened to be on a "bad day", Even if there is a curse it just means these people are victims of circumstance who have cruelty heaped upon them because of chance. Nobody attempts to break the curse. They just ruin their lives.
There is indeed no way to assert the truth with a 100% accuracy but when a man says there is an ancient prophecy that declares that 60 girls born under a total solar eclipse and from royal families will be born with horrible mutations and drown the world in blood. Renfri was a princess and described has possessing mutant powers. She was born on that day and certainly has a great talent for bloodshed. She is the second best fighter in the show so far and is a very successful bandit and murderer. These are pretty solid circumstantial evidences there. Ironically, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy where people hatred nurture the violence and hatred inate in the girls until they germinate in genocidal monster bent on revenge against the world itself, but that's another impossible to verify theory and pointless to the moral dilemma at Geralt's feets. He can't wind back the clock to try to change how things were. He can only do something now. What is certain is that Renfri is a killer hellbent on revenge that would sooner die than let go of her hatred even when offered a chance at a real life with the genuine affection of someone else to help it. She is ready to kill anybody and anything even a man she seems to have genuine affection for if it would kill Stregobor. She's exactly the kind of women mentionned in the prophecy. This all seems to point toward the fact that Stregobor is fundamentally correct in his assesment. How, in those circumstances, is killing her a hard choice? It might be a slightly sad choice for what Renfri could have been, but even then maybe that was destiny too. It seems to be the recurring theme of the season: you can't fight against destiny.
Except thats not what happens on screen.
"Evil" monster killing mutant comes to town,
Villagers want him to move on and look to a group of armed men (likely bandits -BUT never stated) to move him on
Renfri says no - and buys him a drink
Teenage girl (chatting about the animals she has killed) desperate to get out of village leads him to Wizard
Wizard Claims that Renfir is evil and a mutant and needs killing.....because she wants to kill him and he wants to slice her open...claims her stepmother told him she was evil.
Witcher says nope
Renfri and Witcher have a heart to heart, she tells him that she was raped by the Wizards minion and wants revenge
Witcher says nope but sleeps with her
She says bye i am leaving
Turns out she is not, stupidly leaves her men to tell him not to interfere Witcher slaughters her men
Renfri claims she will kill people till the Wizard comes to her, threatens Teenage Girl
Renfri does not kill the girl Witcher kills Renfri despite him having her cold several times (he could have knocked her out...)
Wizard turns up to taunt the Witcher that he might have killed the wrong person and to slice open Renfri
We never see Renfri kill anyone - she threatens to do so but doesn't.
We never see if she has mutations and if she has why they would be "evil" - are Witcher mutations evil?
Mr Morden wrote: We never see Renfri kill anyone - she threatens to do so but doesn't.
No, we indeed don't see her kill anyone neither do we see Stregobor making any autopsies or killing anybody either. Does that mean he does neither? Of course not, we will take the character to his word to make sense of the setting. Renfri claims to be a bandit and to have killed a lot of people. She also claims she is ready to kill anyone that would prevent her from getting her revenge and she does try to kill Geralt precisely for that even though she obviously seems to like him. The fact that Renfri kills people isn't really in question. I think that should she had won the fight against Geralt, she would have killed more people to get Stregobor down that tower. In my opinion the only reason she doesn't kill the girl she has in hostage is because she intended to do so after defeating Geralt and being in good position to fight Stregobor since he likes the girl; the idea was to make a spectacle out of her death to torture psychologically Stregobor (that and potentially because it's fairly taboo to kill children on screen in shows and movies). I would also like to point out that this being her plan tells a lot about both Renfri's and Stregobor psychology. Renfri thinks Stregobor cares enough about the lives of innocent people that he would leave his sanctum to try and stop her if she killed enough of them.
We never see if she has mutations
It's necessary for the plot to even take place for her to be immune to magic and that's only possible if she's a mutant as per the knowledge provided to us by the setting.
and if she has why they would be "evil" - are Witcher mutations evil?
It would basically be the definitive proof that Renfri matches to perfection a prophecy about the end of the world. I would also like to point that being a murdererous bandit makes you an evil person (I think Stregobor even mentions she leaves her victim impaled on spikes). We are in a magical world where prophecies are a real thing. Geralt is sceptic of them and is proven wrong at every turn about them.
As for the Witcher's mutations, they aren't evil per say but the people who used to make them certainly were. It seems that you don't willingly become a Witcher in the first place.
Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative - although even he when he tuants the Witcher at the end implies its not all true or perhaps any of it.
I am assuming (just as possibly incorrectly) that she is telling the truth and the Wizard is lying.
She says she kills people - does she kill innocents? No on screen evidence - in fact the opposite, the Wizard on the other hand.....cuts up girls that he says are evil that may or may not be alive when he does it, we know he is not bothered by the fact that there is an "unfortunate incident" - Renfri being raped.....
Its just as possible a bluff that the Witcher calls and she won't go through with - we don't know what she will or won;t do because the show does not show her aledged darker side.
I think the idea is that she wants the Witcher to kill her (for some reason) as she knows almost immediately she can't win, he is faster, stronger and just better. Probaly now she has been "loved" by a man she can;t live with herself of something similar.....
So Stregobor claims she impales her victims...and we believe him because..... who other than him has a bad word to say about her?
The Witcher is not inherently evil But a girl with mutations enabling her to fight is.....that kinda fits the quasi-medievil fantasy setting.. Interestingly the teenage girl Stragabor is grooming likes killing - guessing he will have to cut her up when he realises she is "evil"...
Mr Morden wrote: Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative
Not really no, I use the information that the show provided to me. Stregobor is certainly not a good man. He is a sleazy, arrogant and creepy man who is far from being adverse to violence and extreme measures, but if he is 100% correct he is a hero who tried to save the world albeit using radical and unpalatable means (and he is still an donkey-cave). If Renfri is a 100% correct, is just a normal girl who cannot bring the end of the world, lived a life of tragedy and pain becaue of a mad man, she is still a mass murdering bandit and Stregobor is another kind of mass murderer (possibly with his own terrible childhood). At best Renfri is only marginally better than Stregobor, but at worst she's the most dangerous person alive. Having a horrible childhood doesn't excuse murder. Geralt is the living proof of that even in the context of the show. This seems like an easy choice to make. It's also the one Geralt makes, consciously or not. The entire theme of the first episode is undermined by the fact that in the information blackout makes one choice obviously better. Narratively speaking it feels terribly forced, the hero was dragged in the plot and did absolutely nothing beside providing a conclusion on what could be best described as an impulse. He could have decided to get involved in the story unfolding around him, but did not. He even refused as pointed out by Stregobor to have the confirmation he made the right choice (or not). In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".
I know I’m late to the party, but I’ve only just started watching The Witcher. I’m 5 episodes in and I honestly don’t think I can be bothered to finish it.
I’ve never read the books, I’ve never played the games, but that shouldn’t matter. However, after 5 episodes I have no idea why any of this is happening, I’m pretty clueless about the world in which it’s taking place and I don’t really care to find out. It all just feels like generic, cliched and mediocre fantasy.
epronovost wrote: In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".
Well yeah, the screenwriting geniuses behind the show decided to butcher, ahah, the source material and cut out Geralt's actual motivation from the script. No wonder people are confused.
Mr Morden wrote: Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative
Not really no, I use the information that the show provided to me. Stregobor is certainly not a good man. He is a sleazy, arrogant and creepy man who is far from being adverse to violence and extreme measures, but if he is 100% correct he is a hero who tried to save the world albeit using radical and unpalatable means (and he is still an donkey-cave). If Renfri is a 100% correct, is just a normal girl who cannot bring the end of the world, lived a life of tragedy and pain becaue of a mad man, she is still a mass murdering bandit and Stregobor is another kind of mass murderer (possibly with his own terrible childhood). At best Renfri is only marginally better than Stregobor, but at worst she's the most dangerous person alive. Having a horrible childhood doesn't excuse murder. Geralt is the living proof of that even in the context of the show. This seems like an easy choice to make. It's also the one Geralt makes, consciously or not. The entire theme of the first episode is undermined by the fact that in the information blackout makes one choice obviously better. Narratively speaking it feels terribly forced, the hero was dragged in the plot and did absolutely nothing beside providing a conclusion on what could be best described as an impulse. He could have decided to get involved in the story unfolding around him, but did not. He even refused as pointed out by Stregobor to have the confirmation he made the right choice (or not). In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".
you keep saying "doesn't excuse" no one is saying it's excused.
Perhaps it's best to remember the name of this story in the book. "The Lesser evil" BOTH Stregobor and Renfrei are Evil. the question is "whom is the lesser evil?"
Also we're outright shown that you don't need a curse to be a wicked kid. did you listen to what the little girl says to geralt while she's taking him to Stregobor? she's clearly "not quite right" herself. So maybe just maybe Renfri's not a wicked bandit because of a curse? she didn't CHOOSE to become a Bandit, the lifestyle was forced onto her. thing is you can argue eaither way, and people have been arguing about whose right since the story "the lesser evil" was published.
Perhaps it's best to remember the name of this story in the book. "The Lesser evil" BOTH Stregobor and Renfrei are Evil. the question is "whom is the lesser evil?"
Didn't I provided a simple litmus test to solve this problem in the information vacuum provided to the protagonist? One comes out pretty clearly as the lesser evil there.
Mr Morden wrote: Ah but you are very much assuming from the begining that the wizard is telling the truth and buying into his narrative
Not really no, I use the information that the show provided to me. Stregobor is certainly not a good man. He is a sleazy, arrogant and creepy man who is far from being adverse to violence and extreme measures, but if he is 100% correct he is a hero who tried to save the world albeit using radical and unpalatable means (and he is still an donkey-cave). If Renfri is a 100% correct, is just a normal girl who cannot bring the end of the world, lived a life of tragedy and pain becaue of a mad man, she is still a mass murdering bandit and Stregobor is another kind of mass murderer (possibly with his own terrible childhood). At best Renfri is only marginally better than Stregobor, but at worst she's the most dangerous person alive. Having a horrible childhood doesn't excuse murder. Geralt is the living proof of that even in the context of the show. This seems like an easy choice to make. It's also the one Geralt makes, consciously or not. The entire theme of the first episode is undermined by the fact that in the information blackout makes one choice obviously better. Narratively speaking it feels terribly forced, the hero was dragged in the plot and did absolutely nothing beside providing a conclusion on what could be best described as an impulse. He could have decided to get involved in the story unfolding around him, but did not. He even refused as pointed out by Stregobor to have the confirmation he made the right choice (or not). In a twist of irony, the protagonist sort of "refused to participate in the first episode of his own show".
Again you are taking one characters assertions as Fact and building up the justifcation from that with little to no onscreen evidence. Who says she is a "mass murdering bandit?" Thats a leap from her assertion that she had to kill to survive. Is she a "bandit" like the hafling-Elves and the Satyr in the second episode or something else? We don;t know.
Why is no-one in the village apparently afraid of her if thats the case? Why are they happy to give her dirty looks when she buys the Witcher a drink when a psycho rampaging bandit lord would have slit his throat for or less. If she has generated that powerful a reputation the villagers should have been incredably scared of her - but they are not - no-one but the wizard is.....she is not presented as a villain on screen right up until the moment she decides to commit sucicde by atacking the Witcher.
I would agree that its not a very well done episode, and the Witcher is a disintersted party
On they don't kill children - well its not a very adult show then. GOT (they chucked a kid out of a window to die), Shanara did, Into the Badlands did - but they still managed to have some female T+A in the first episode....
As for the Witcher's mutations, they aren't evil per say but the people who used to make them certainly were.
So a Witcher can choose not to be evil but a mutated girl can't?
it's worth noting BTW that in the end Geralt clearly choose stergobor as the lesser evil. that said they made him out to be more of an ass. The book does a MUCH MUCH better job of this story. they sadly missed a few VERY important things in the details (I feel like they where trying to be too clever)
Mr Morden wrote: So a Witcher can choose not to be evil but a mutated girl can't?
Within the context of Stregobor's theory, the mutations are a symptom, not the cause.
Also, Sapkowski either didn't know or didn't care about the proper definition of mutation, because witchers are not mutated, at least not the way Renfri was.
BrianDavion wrote: it's worth noting BTW that in the end Geralt clearly choose stergobor as the lesser evil. that said they made him out to be more of an ass. The book does a MUCH MUCH better job of this story. they sadly missed a few VERY important things in the details (I feel like they where trying to be too clever)
Do you care to expand? From my point of view the first episode was all style and very little actual substance which is a disapointing because there was enough material (and acting talent) to make an interesting story out of this.
Do you care to expand? From my point of view the first episode was all style and very little actual substance which is a disapointing because there was enough material (and acting talent) to make an interesting story out of this.
So in the books, the story is the third entry, not the first. Preceding it is a fragment of a framing story that establishes quite efficiently that witchers are considered barely better than the monsters they hunt and not welcome in most places. From there, "Lesser Evil" starts with Geralt almost immediately meeting with Caldemeyn, the burgmaster of Blaviken. And lo and behold, Caldemeyn invites Geralt to a beer, and later into his house, offering room and board. Doesn't hide little Marilka in the cellar. They're clearly well acquainted, friendly even.
So that's Geralt's stake in the story - a place where he's accepted, more or less.
In the mean time, Geralt meets Stregobor. The gentlemen know each other, as Stregobor had Geralt arrested and almost executed in the past. The whole Black Sun theory is presented, in rather great detail. Geralt's not impressed, but he goes and meets with Renfri. He makes it clear he's not going to allow Renfir to kill Stregobor, but from the onset, his concern is more the local community than the mage himself. Later on Renfri visits him, offers her side of the story and mentions an ultimatum she's going to present to Stregobor, without going into details.
Next morning, Caldemeyn mentions another ultimatum, the Tridam one, over breakfast - bandits taking a number of pilgrims hostage on a river barge, demanding the release of their companions. A lot of people die and a member of Renfri's entourage happens to be one of the hostage takers.
Geralt has an epiphany, rushes to the market, where Renfri's men are waiting for her and, as it turns out, for him. They try to kill him, he kills them back. Renfri shows up, claiming Stregobor told her she could just as well kill every man, woman and child in Blaviken and it wouldn't budge him from the tower. They fight. Renfri dies, making one last dramatic attempt at taking Geralt down with her.
Caldemeyn shows up, finds the market silent as a grave, littered with multiple corpses, and tells Geralt to leave and never come back. Thus our hero pays the price for choosing the lesser evil.
It's not a particularly complicated story, but it needs a bit more than 20 minutes and a mutilated screenplay to play out properly.
from your resumé the story appears much better. and even thematically different. The first episode of the show seems to make it a story of "choosing the lesser evil" so basically we are supposed to find who we should trust more...which the character doesn't really do. In the novella, it seems to be more about the cost of your decisions than about finding who is right or less evil than the other. The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.
from your resumé the story appears much better. and even thematically different. The first episode of the show seems to make it a story of "choosing the lesser evil" so basically we are supposed to find who we should trust more...which the character doesn't really do. In the novella, it seems to be more about the cost of your decisions than about finding who is right or less evil than the other. The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.
Indeed, in written format, the story can be used as a bit of a justification for staying neutral. Had Geralt walked away, people would have died but it wou;dn't have been on him, by getting involved, no one thanked him, he was blamed and cast out for it.
in the series however they wanted to eistablish the Geralt didn't belive in destiny, his whole character growth is clearly intended to be accepting that destiny exists, that he has one and what his place in that destiny is
epronovost wrote: The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.
She claims she would not go ahead with the killings, since Stregobor had no intention of leaving the tower, but that's after Geralt already got involved. And then there's the dagger, at the end. In the show, it's easy to see her as the more positive of the two, it's way less obvious in the book.
Anyway, in the book, the titular lesser evil is not about Stregobor or Renfri. They're both merely catalysts for the choice between standing aside and losing nothing, and getting involved and losing everything.
Witchers in general have a policy of non involvement because when lords and gak hire them for things that are not killing monsters they end up as political tools and scape goats which get a lot of them killed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Geralt more than most end up with ties to "rich people". As you see with the law of surprise.
from your resumé the story appears much better. and even thematically different. The first episode of the show seems to make it a story of "choosing the lesser evil" so basically we are supposed to find who we should trust more...which the character doesn't really do. In the novella, it seems to be more about the cost of your decisions than about finding who is right or less evil than the other. The way you present it, Renfri seems dramatically more "evil" than Stregobor, but killing her still has terrible repercussion for Geralt and the people he actually cared about.
Indeed, in written format, the story can be used as a bit of a justification for staying neutral. Had Geralt walked away, people would have died but it wou;dn't have been on him, by getting involved, no one thanked him, he was blamed and cast out for it.
in the series however they wanted to establish the Geralt didn't belive in destiny, his whole character growth is clearly intended to be accepting that destiny exists, that he has one and what his place in that destiny is
Agreed the written story seems a far more thought out and have a satisfying narrative
The problem with the show (to me at least) is that by chosing to use this story as the first story they handicap themselves as they need to both establish characters and world that you want to see more of but also a more intricate narrative than they have time for. If Episode one had been the Witcher and this story and episode two the runaway Princess it may have worked better. what we get (IMO) is a series of mixed up scenes that want you to engage but give confusing and contradictory messages that a few minutes on each would have adied tremedously.
Ummm, I thought the first episode was pretty clear...... and delivered the same experience as I gleaned from the synopsis of the story?
To me, this obviously became a theme for the rest of the season, with the first episode laying out the core thematic problem the characters would need to face and answer, which is then what happened in almost every episode after......
Easy E wrote: Ummm, I thought the first episode was pretty clear...... and delivered the same experience as I gleaned from the synopsis of the story?
To me, this obviously became a theme for the rest of the season, with the first episode laying out the core thematic problem the characters would need to face and answer, which is then what happened in almost every episode after......
Big swing and miss for me in terms of what they wanted to do - see previous posts.
well that was quite a lark, and Cavill is pretty solid, I'll go 7/10 (would have been 8 but denying me Redheads has its price*)
* not saying there was anything wrong with the actor for Triss, she's bringing the smarts, sass and heart Triss needs but I'm errm mechanically biased towards the ginge
Its such a good Bard song. I mean the lyrics are pretty bad but calling the area "Valley of Plenty" to pander to locals is totally something a travelling Bard would do. It also helps that Jaskier is a good singer and has the chops to pull it off.
The whole thing is so catchy that there are at least a dozen posting of the song on Youtube and each one has at least 3 Million views.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Its such a good Bard song. I mean the lyrics are pretty bad but calling the area "Valley of Plenty" to pander to locals is totally something a travelling Bard would do. It also helps that Jaskier is a good singer and has the chops to pull it off.
The whole thing is so catchy that there are at least a dozen posting of the song on Youtube and each one has at least 3 Million views.
Vally of plenty is more then JUST pandering, it tells people how great their area is in a way that it makes them feel rich, and thus if they're the valley of plenty, surely they can afford to... toss a coin to their witcher
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Its such a good Bard song. I mean the lyrics are pretty bad but calling the area "Valley of Plenty" to pander to locals is totally something a travelling Bard would do. It also helps that Jaskier is a good singer and has the chops to pull it off.
The whole thing is so catchy that there are at least a dozen posting of the song on Youtube and each one has at least 3 Million views.
Vally of plenty is more then JUST pandering, it tells people how great their area is in a way that it makes them feel rich, and thus if they're the valley of plenty, surely they can afford to... toss a coin to their witcher
there's also a bit guilting here, you think you've got it bad, at least you're not a friendless mutant who kills monsters for spare change.
Got around to watching yesterday, speaking as a previously uninvested person, overall pretty excellent. The ballsack armour and a couple of small cringe moments belies the generally pretty well executed "show, don't tell" approach to female characters. I'm not 100% sure, but I think I'd have preferred if they just stuck with chronological order rather than flitting about to try and hold back stuff for "big reveals".
Ratius wrote: I cant get into this at all =/
I want to but just cant seem to for some reason.
You don't have to. I rate it a 6/10. Completely okay entertainment with very few stunning moments, and a handful of cringe moments.
I do think/hope it did well enough to warrant a few more seasons...and hopefully they'll iron out and develop more of a solid show. I think it has potential, but I wouldn't feel bad if you didn't enjoy it or get into it. You're not missing anything amazing.
I 'm a pretty big fan of the books and cames and I have to say I bounced of the show hard, it took a couple of sessions just to watch the 1st episode and while not a conscious decision I so far have not watched any more.
The thing is I cannot put my finger on any particular reason why, the casting decisions were an irritant but not a deal breaker, the cos play armour and its inane reason for existing was laughable but more of an eye roll than anything more. Still though I don't feel any real urge to watch the rest it just seemed like to much effort for too little payout.
I would say they did the show a disservice with the time jump editing.
A thing the show has not quite gone into that Witcher 3 managed to go into a lot (and that I love) is that Witchers are basically the Spartan Program (from Halo) but monster hunters.
Taken as children, drilled in physical training and education, genetically modified.
It's pretty great. Witchers have a vast encyclopedic knowledge of the monsters they face, their strengths, weaknesses, and the tools to stack the odds in their favor with the mutations giving them an edge to do it. A witcher even brews potions that help them but are highly toxic and would kill a normal person. This one lets them hold their breath much longer, this one lets them see in near total darkness like a cat, this one makes their blood poison to vampires and other necrophages, etc...
The only thing that really irked me was the "costume wardobe" everything was too clean and clearly "new" for my liking, it really didn't sell the show for me.
This doubled up on the bard and his look, screenplay and general "Babbling English lad looser hugh grant wannabe" acting was abysmal... Both me and my GF think he single handily ruined the show for us lol.
GOT has proven dragons can be done... and that frigging gold dragon was the worse bit of CG I have seen since the OG polish Witcher film. Absolutely broke any kind of immersion.
Lance845 wrote: A thing the show has not quite gone into that Witcher 3 managed to go into a lot (and that I love) is that Witchers are basically the Spartan Program (from Halo) but monster hunters.
Taken as children, drilled in physical training and education, genetically modified.
It's pretty great. Witchers have a vast encyclopedic knowledge of the monsters they face, their strengths, weaknesses, and the tools to stack the odds in their favor with the mutations giving them an edge to do it. A witcher even brews potions that help them but are highly toxic and would kill a normal person. This one lets them hold their breath much longer, this one lets them see in near total darkness like a cat, this one makes their blood poison to vampires and other necrophages, etc...
Love it.
I'm predicting that we'll get more info oin what witchers are and how they're made early season 2.
Blood of Elves starts off with Triss coming to Kaer Morean to help with Ciri and she expresses worries about their training, if they had subjected her to mutagens (the answer is no) this seems the ideal time to give some flashbacks etc of Geralts training as a boy.
Lance845 wrote: A thing the show has not quite gone into that Witcher 3 managed to go into a lot (and that I love) is that Witchers are basically the Spartan Program (from Halo) but monster hunters.
Taken as children, drilled in physical training and education, genetically modified.
It's pretty great. Witchers have a vast encyclopedic knowledge of the monsters they face, their strengths, weaknesses, and the tools to stack the odds in their favor with the mutations giving them an edge to do it. A witcher even brews potions that help them but are highly toxic and would kill a normal person. This one lets them hold their breath much longer, this one lets them see in near total darkness like a cat, this one makes their blood poison to vampires and other necrophages, etc...
Love it.
I'm predicting that we'll get more info oin what witchers are and how they're made early season 2.
Blood of Elves starts off with Triss coming to Kaer Morean to help with Ciri and she expresses worries about their training, if they had subjected her to mutagens (the answer is no) this seems the ideal time to give some flashbacks etc of Geralts training as a boy.
I think that's plausible. They already laid out the groundwork for his childhood to be more developed with his flashbacks and hints.
Lance845 wrote: A thing the show has not quite gone into that Witcher 3 managed to go into a lot (and that I love) is that Witchers are basically the Spartan Program (from Halo) but monster hunters.
Taken as children, drilled in physical training and education, genetically modified.
It's pretty great. Witchers have a vast encyclopedic knowledge of the monsters they face, their strengths, weaknesses, and the tools to stack the odds in their favor with the mutations giving them an edge to do it. A witcher even brews potions that help them but are highly toxic and would kill a normal person. This one lets them hold their breath much longer, this one lets them see in near total darkness like a cat, this one makes their blood poison to vampires and other necrophages, etc...
Love it.
I'm predicting that we'll get more info oin what witchers are and how they're made early season 2.
Blood of Elves starts off with Triss coming to Kaer Morean to help with Ciri and she expresses worries about their training, if they had subjected her to mutagens (the answer is no) this seems the ideal time to give some flashbacks etc of Geralts training as a boy.
I think that's plausible. They already laid out the groundwork for his childhood to be more developed with his flashbacks and hints.
it's what I'd do. heck do it right and they could even have some tension added to the matter by making viewers worry "... ohh gak are they going to do this to her?!"
3 episodes in, I thought it'd be abysmal, but I find myself really enjoying it. I do like that they went for a "fantasy armor" aesthetic instead of sticking to muddy "realistic" colors.
Not surprising, I hated GoT deeply, and this is like, anti-GoT in terms of attitude towards characters and general themes.
Watching this with the wife at the moment. I've never played the games or read the books, so I sort of feel a little thrown in at the deep end. the story is compelling if a little confusing with the disparate timelines, and I have no real clue what witchers 'are' other than monster killers. I feel like the backstory needs fleshing out more.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Watching this with the wife at the moment. I've never played the games or read the books, so I sort of feel a little thrown in at the deep end. the story is compelling if a little confusing with the disparate timelines, and I have no real clue what witchers 'are' other than monster killers. I feel like the backstory needs fleshing out more.
It's touched on a bit in the show in the same way that it's touched on in the books and games until you are a bit of the way in. I don't think they REALLY explain what witchers actually are until the 3rd game.
Witchers are collected as kids by other witchers, taken as payment for jobs they do, orphans they adopt, or whatever.
The kids are then put through the medieval fantasy version of the spartan program from Halo. Rigorous study and physical training. They learn all about the various monsters and their weaknesses. Massive amounts of obstacle courses, stamina, reaction speed, and fighting with various weapons training. They learn poisons, cures, and some alchemy. They learn a few "hand sign" spells. Just brief little things.Nothing even remotely close to what a actual mage can do but it helps.
This is topped off at some point (still as kids) when they go through a mutagenic process that is "stabilized" with spells (with the aid of a sorceress or wizard) that augments them. They live longer (potentially hundreds of years), have enhanced reflexes, and a resistance to toxic substances which allows them to drink their potions and other alchemical mixtures that would kill a normal person. Maybe 3 in 10 children survive this process? More training and study and then a final set of trials. This last set usually kills off 1 or 2 of the surviving 3. Those that make it out the other end are given a necklace pendant that marks them as a full witcher. It has some properties that are not super important but they are shaped like whatever school they graduated from. Geralt comes from the school of the Wolf. The Serpent, the Cat, the Gryphon are some of the others. At the time of the stories witchers are more or less dieing out. Not just because of how dangerous their lives are but because people hate them for being mutants and they are just as often killed by the people they are working for as they are the monsters they hunt. Some of the schools have lost the ability to make more witchers. Either because the process has been lost, or the wizard/sorceress support is gone, or the mutagens have become increasingly rare. Other things.
In the books, at least up to the last book in the Saga (I do think Sapkowski published more short stories?) there were no other schools, Witchers were essentially an invention of a rogue wizard, and with the sacking of Kaer Morhen and it's laboratories, no more could be made. Witchers themselves tried, but without wizard help, the trials were just a cruel way to kill kids.
In the story Voice of Reason Geralt talks about his medallion coming from his school. While the other schools are not mentioned as schools a Cat School Witcher shows up in another school and a Griffon medallion shows up somewhere.
Game of Thrones alum Kristofer Hivju is making his way to a new fantasy realm.
The actor has joined the cast of The Witcher at Netflix. Hivju, who played Tormund Giantsbane on Game of Thrones, is one of seven additions to the cast for season two, which is in production.
Hivju will play Nivellen, who in the Witcher books is a man cursed to take on the appearance of a monster. When he meets Geralt (Henry Cavill), however, the witcher realizes Nivellen isn't actually a monster because he's not repelled by silver.
Also joining The Witcher for season two are Yasen Atour (Young Wallender) as Coen, Agnes Bjorn as Vereena, Paul Bullion (Peaky Blinders) as Lambert, Thue Ersted Rasmussen (F9) as Eskel, Aisha Fabienne Ross (The Danish Girl) as Lydia and Mecia Simson as Francesca.
"The reaction to season one of The Witcher set a high bar for adding new talent for the second season," said showrunner Lauren Schmidt Hissrich. "Sophie Holland and her casting team have once again found the very best people to embody these characters, and in the hands of these accomplished directors, we’re excited to see these new stories come to life."
Stephen Surjik (The Umbrella Academy), Sarah O'Gorman (Netflix's Cursed), Ed Bazalgette (Doctor Who) and Geeta Patel (Superstore, Dead to Me) will each direct two episodes of the second season.
Cavill and fellow stars Anya Chalotra, Freya Allan and Joey Batey are set to reprise their roles. The Witcher, which Netflix says was one of its top-performing series in the fourth quarter of 2019, is set to return in 2021.
queen_annes_revenge wrote: Watching this with the wife at the moment. I've never played the games or read the books, so I sort of feel a little thrown in at the deep end. the story is compelling if a little confusing with the disparate timelines, and I have no real clue what witchers 'are' other than monster killers. I feel like the backstory needs fleshing out more.
It's touched on a bit in the show in the same way that it's touched on in the books and games until you are a bit of the way in. I don't think they REALLY explain what witchers actually are until the 3rd game.
Witchers are collected as kids by other witchers, taken as payment for jobs they do, orphans they adopt, or whatever.
The kids are then put through the medieval fantasy version of the spartan program from Halo. Rigorous study and physical training. They learn all about the various monsters and their weaknesses. Massive amounts of obstacle courses, stamina, reaction speed, and fighting with various weapons training. They learn poisons, cures, and some alchemy. They learn a few "hand sign" spells. Just brief little things.Nothing even remotely close to what a actual mage can do but it helps.
This is topped off at some point (still as kids) when they go through a mutagenic process that is "stabilized" with spells (with the aid of a sorceress or wizard) that augments them. They live longer (potentially hundreds of years), have enhanced reflexes, and a resistance to toxic substances which allows them to drink their potions and other alchemical mixtures that would kill a normal person. Maybe 3 in 10 children survive this process? More training and study and then a final set of trials. This last set usually kills off 1 or 2 of the surviving 3. Those that make it out the other end are given a necklace pendant that marks them as a full witcher. It has some properties that are not super important but they are shaped like whatever school they graduated from. Geralt comes from the school of the Wolf. The Serpent, the Cat, the Gryphon are some of the others. At the time of the stories witchers are more or less dieing out. Not just because of how dangerous their lives are but because people hate them for being mutants and they are just as often killed by the people they are working for as they are the monsters they hunt. Some of the schools have lost the ability to make more witchers. Either because the process has been lost, or the wizard/sorceress support is gone, or the mutagens have become increasingly rare. Other things.
Its also worth noting that the various Witchers in game 3 also seem to regard the loss of the ability to make Witchers as a good thing. There are... 4? total left in the Wolf school, and between the main quest line and some ghost chasing in old ruins, its pretty clear they regard the process as torture and cruelty. And the ghosts segment doesn't paint the training in a much better light.
As for the plagiarism critique I find that the guy totally misses the point, which isn't surprising for me as he isn't Polish The characters and the world in the Witcher are pretty generic for a reason - the point of the books was more to play with masterfully stylized Polish language and references to Polish stereotypical traits of character and ways of thinking.
To be honest, many years ago, long before any of the CP games, when I was re-reading the books, I regretted that thay are probably un-translatable, both when it comes to the language and the references.
There's a reason that the Witcher series are a suggested reading for Polish classes at school - the language and the references matter, because I don't think there's much to study when it comes to the plot or characters.
The language thing would certainly explain some of the clunkier bits of the English versions, Ive only read The Last Wish off the back of the first game and theres bits where the translation falls between literal and trying to bend the words as best they can
and anyhoo pilfering from Moorcock is fine, if its good enough for gw...
'Dude with sword takes drugs to help fight' is roughly the sum total similarity between the characters.
Flipped through the comments for some of gist, much to my regret.
Since this seems to be a major topic: fantasy multiverse theory is solidly public domain. Way too many people use it to claim 'plagiarism.' and 'conjunction of the spheres' wanders all the way back to Ptolemaic astrology/astronomy*, reused heavily in medieval astrology and even referenced a fair bit by Shakespeare.
*the spheres being the moon, mercury, venus, the sun, mars, jupiter, saturn and 'the fixed stars.' (probably just the north star now, but his measurements would have been a little less precise).
A conjunction was when two (or more) lined up from a point on Earth.
Elric is a Demon summoning, Demon Worshipping inhuman albino Emperor of a nation that enslaved the whole world with Demon sword that steals the Souls of those he fights adn more impotantly those he loves who also rides Dragons. He is also physically weak without his drugs or lifedraining sword - is renowned for his cultured speech and book learning.
From what I have seen of the Witcher - he is very very different.
Elric is closer to someone like Malekith or Maleus Darkblade or someone from the Malaz Book of the Fallen or even Daenrys Targaryian
BaconCatBug wrote: I see none of you bothered to watch the video, since he explains pretty clearly all your points to the contrary.
I mean, I made it 15 minutes in. He discussed some of the things people brought up, by loudly and obnoxiously mocking them and then just pointing back to how they are both white with a sword. That seemed to be his only argument. Elric and Geralt are both white and they both use swords.
BaconCatBug wrote: I see none of you bothered to watch the video, since he explains pretty clearly all your points to the contrary.
I mean, I made it 15 minutes in. He discussed some of the things people brought up, by loudly and obnoxiously mocking them and then just pointing back to how they are both white with a sword. That seemed to be his only argument. Elric and Geralt are both white and they both use swords.
And like is said in the video, all that is needed for a slam dunk court case is a name, and an appearance. All the OTHER proven examples are just icing on the cake.
No 'court' would make a plagiarism ruling based on a single name or appearance. There has to be real substance (like directly just lifting and copying text in significant chunks), particularly with fiction, and an accusation would need to provide a pile of evidence that allegedly plagiarized bits were only ever used by the supposed original author and never in the public domain (history or myth particularly).
This is particularly true since plagiarism isn't actually criminal in most countries, but a matter of academic and journalism ethics. Copyright infringement is more likely to apply, if anything.
BaconCatBug wrote: I see none of you bothered to watch the video, since he explains pretty clearly all your points to the contrary.
I mean, I made it 15 minutes in. He discussed some of the things people brought up, by loudly and obnoxiously mocking them and then just pointing back to how they are both white with a sword. That seemed to be his only argument. Elric and Geralt are both white and they both use swords.
I was the same - lots of swearing cos its cool......
BaconCatBug wrote: So, you were provided evidence but refuse to accept it because you dislike the format it was given in?
I shall deliver my one hour long rebuttal via punching your face in Morse code. You wouldn’t refuse to accept that just because of the format, would you?
BaconCatBug wrote: So, you were provided evidence but refuse to accept it because you dislike the format it was given in?
I shall deliver my one hour long rebuttal via punching your face in Morse code. You wouldn’t refuse to accept that just because of the format, would you?
Well, no because that is a fundamental violation of my rights. A slightly sweary video isn't.
How about the the Witcher Plagiarism video by The Necrolibriatas he referenced at the beginning:
It started filming just before lockdown and recent interviews with Henry Cavill indicate filming is due to restart fairly soon. So all signs point to yes at the moment.
Mr Morden wrote:Elric is a Demon summoning, Demon Worshipping inhuman albino Emperor of a nation that enslaved the whole world with Demon sword that steals the Souls of those he fights adn more impotantly those he loves who also rides Dragons.
...
Elric is closer to someone like Malekith or Maleus Darkblade or someone from the Malaz Book of the Fallen or even Daenrys Targaryian
In the first half my first thought was "So he's basically Anomandar Rake with his hair/skin color reversed?"
BaconCatBug wrote:I see none of you bothered to watch the video, since he explains pretty clearly all your points to the contrary.
Nope. Seems like YouTube drivel from some hack who couldn't make it producing anything worthwhile. Had enough of that back in the Star Trek threads. I'll just take your word that the video is what it is.
BaconCatBug wrote:So, you were provided evidence but refuse to accept it because you dislike the format it was given in?
Evidence exists for many things. Doesn't mean it's convincing evidence. Or particularly compelling given how readily any number of fantasy heroes (Geralt, Anomander Rake, whoever the feth this bloke we're on about is, Dritz, Aragon, etc. etc.) are all fairly samey when you stand them next to each other. You'd have to be a genre devotee to tell the lot of them apart, otherwise it's just a meme trotted out by someone desperately seeking attention. Nevermind the fact that this applies to basically all genres and most heroic protagonists. Most of them are fairly interchangeable... *idea for a fanfic*
BaconCatBug wrote: I see none of you bothered to watch the video, since he explains pretty clearly all your points to the contrary.
I mean, I made it 15 minutes in. He discussed some of the things people brought up, by loudly and obnoxiously mocking them and then just pointing back to how they are both white with a sword. That seemed to be his only argument. Elric and Geralt are both white and they both use swords.
And like is said in the video, all that is needed for a slam dunk court case is a name, and an appearance. All the OTHER proven examples are just icing on the cake.
I mean, if that is all they needed for a Slam Dunk Court Case, then Moorcock would have won his court case when it was in court.
Geralt and the Witchers have more in common with the Master Chief and the Spartans of Halo then anything else.
Taken as children, put through intense physical and mental training. Training that many don't survive. Augmented genetically by science/magic that kills even more of them, given specialized equipment and then finally made into weapons to defend the regular populace from a threat the regular populace can't handle themselves.
What Witchers go through is the Spartan program for monster hunters. Except Halo came out after Witcher. So whos ripping off who?
BaconCatBug wrote: I see none of you bothered to watch the video, since he explains pretty clearly all your points to the contrary.
I mean, I made it 15 minutes in. He discussed some of the things people brought up, by loudly and obnoxiously mocking them and then just pointing back to how they are both white with a sword. That seemed to be his only argument. Elric and Geralt are both white and they both use swords.
And like is said in the video, all that is needed for a slam dunk court case is a name, and an appearance. All the OTHER proven examples are just icing on the cake.
I mean, if that is all they needed for a Slam Dunk Court Case, then Moorcock would have won his court case when it was in court.
So I guess the courts didn't see this video?
What court case? You mean the one Moorcock didn't pursue because he doesn't actually care if people rip off his stuff? You know, that is in the video too. You really should watch it before making statements.
BaconCatBug wrote: I see none of you bothered to watch the video, since he explains pretty clearly all your points to the contrary.
I mean, I made it 15 minutes in. He discussed some of the things people brought up, by loudly and obnoxiously mocking them and then just pointing back to how they are both white with a sword. That seemed to be his only argument. Elric and Geralt are both white and they both use swords.
And like is said in the video, all that is needed for a slam dunk court case is a name, and an appearance. All the OTHER proven examples are just icing on the cake.
I mean, if that is all they needed for a Slam Dunk Court Case, then Moorcock would have won his court case when it was in court.
So I guess the courts didn't see this video?
What court case? You mean the one Moorcock didn't pursue because he doesn't actually care if people rip off his stuff? You know, that is in the video too. You really should watch it before making statements.
No, the one where he contacted his attorney and his attorney never even responded to him about it. Because he knew that a case about superficial similarities is pretty much crap and dead in the water. So much for that Slam Dunk Court Case. You should read more about Razorbros first video he made in 2014. The one that everybody just shrugged off as crap, even the forums dedicated to Moorcock decided this was a bunch of crap. Nobody listens to this guy.
Dreadwinter wrote: The one that everybody just shrugged off as crap, even the forums dedicated to Moorcock decided this was a bunch of crap.
The first clue is the title. I've never seen a more solid example of "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Yeah, it is really kinda strange. It would be like saying Master Chief is plagiarizing Doom Marine. They both have green armor, use guns, and are unstoppable forces. That sure is plagiarism!
Dreadwinter wrote: The one that everybody just shrugged off as crap, even the forums dedicated to Moorcock decided this was a bunch of crap.
The first clue is the title. I've never seen a more solid example of "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Yeah, it is really kinda strange. It would be like saying Master Chief is plagiarizing Doom Marine. They both have green armor, use guns, and are unstoppable forces. That sure is plagiarism!
Everyone knows both are secretly just plagiarized from the GM Spartan!
Much better than what I remember of the first. They ditched the jumping around through different time periods shtick and just did a linear story. Works a lot better. Also the monsters are awesome.
I'm enjoying it so far and am about 4 episodes in. What I'm not missing is the confusing and unexplained non-linear storytelling. I know they were trying something new but I don't think it worked in Season 1.
warboss wrote: I'm enjoying it so far and am about 4 episodes in. What I'm not missing is the confusing and unexplained non-linear storytelling. I know they were trying something new but I don't think it worked in Season 1.
Just wait, there's a scene with the bard where they make fun of it.
Finished it this morning. It was thoroughly enjoyable and I will probably give it another run through as my background noise as I paint.
Only people I've seen who have a problem with it are (as always) the book fans who are upset it is not proper adaptation. Which continues to confirm my practice of never reading the source material until AFTER the show is done.
Commodus Leitdorf wrote: Finished it this morning. It was thoroughly enjoyable and I will probably give it another run through as my background noise as I paint.
Only people I've seen who have a problem with it are (as always) the book fans who are upset it is not proper adaptation. Which continues to confirm my practice of never reading the source material until AFTER the show is done.
I read some of the short stories, and am in no way interested on reading the actual books. The games, though, I am very much a fan.
I haven't yet finished the whole season, but I'm having fun with it so far. The budget increase is also noticeable, and the removal of the scrotum armor, welcome.
Lance845 wrote: Much better than what I remember of the first. They ditched the jumping around through different time periods shtick and just did a linear story. Works a lot better. Also the monsters are awesome.
I was hoping this would be the case and that I'd be able to enjoy the series more.
I mean I kinda get why people had trouble with the first season. I figured out the jumping timeline pretty quickly, but I accept it was difficult due to how poorly it was handled. It was also a by product of the first season being made based on all the short stories, while season 2 is based on the first full novel so its much more linear.
Does suck that all these fantasy shows are coming out NOW. What the hell else am I going to watch now? (besides the Witcher again)
warboss wrote: I'm enjoying it so far and am about 4 episodes in. What I'm not missing is the confusing and unexplained non-linear storytelling. I know they were trying something new but I don't think it worked in Season 1.
Just wait, there's a scene with the bard where they make fun of it.
Looking forward to it! One thing I forgot to mention is that I enjoy the somewhat renewed focus on the actual witcher in the WITCHER. I realize it's mostly a by-product of him meeting up with Ciri at the end of last season but I'm ok with that as a consolation prize. The almost even three way split combined with hidden non-linear storytelling detracted from the first season.
Watched it all yesterday. I was very happy when Dandelion showed up again. He's great fun.
I hope this is all leading to the coup and the Lodge of Sorceressessesessses (that's how you spell that, right?), 'cause that seems like it could be an interesting plot to take.
Plus we're introduced to Phillipa, and she's a big deal. Dykstra was fantastic. Good casting.
I'm currently re-watching season 1 after reading all the books and although I did like the tv series when it was released I'm definitely appreciating it much more. There's a lot to catch if you're familiar with the books, that of course I missed the first time.
warboss wrote: I'm enjoying it so far and am about 4 episodes in. What I'm not missing is the confusing and unexplained non-linear storytelling. I know they were trying something new but I don't think it worked in Season 1.
It was different, but this is good to. Three episodes in. I am quite impressed with Cavill in this.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Watched it all yesterday. I was very happy when Dandelion showed up again. He's great fun.
I hope this is all leading to the coup and the Lodge of Sorceressessesessses (that's how you spell that, right?), 'cause that seems like it could be an interesting plot to take.
Plus we're introduced to Phillipa, and she's a big deal. Dykstra was fantastic. Good casting.
Here's hoping for Regis in season 3!
Spoiler:
The Coup is a major plot point of the second book. It's going to happen. The only question is when, and how they will deal with it on-screen.
warboss wrote: I'm enjoying it so far and am about 4 episodes in. What I'm not missing is the confusing and unexplained non-linear storytelling. I know they were trying something new but I don't think it worked in Season 1.
Just wait, there's a scene with the bard where they make fun of it.
I got to the part and enjoyed it. Not technically fourth wall breaking but definitely a self aware in universe joke.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For those like me who haven't read the books or played the games, are you remembering character names outside of the main trio of heroes and the major villains? Other than Vessemir, I'm not. I don't know if that's a failure on my part though. I had to search the wiki for some of the names mentioned above to see who they were. Once I saw the pics then I knew who they were ("Oh, that's the other witcher who died gruesomely early on") but the names didn't stick with me (whether on the wizard's council or other non-Geralt/Vessimir witchers).
warboss wrote: For those like me who haven't read the books, are you remembering character names outside of the main trio of heroes and the major villains?
Yes, but because I have experience from the games.
So when Dijkstra first showed up, I said out loud "Oh he's a right bastard, that one!" because I remember him from Witcher 3. When Philippa Eilhart showed up I gasped, because I know she's a bigger deal later on. When fething Eredin appears, riding at the front of the Wild Hunt, that was pretty cool. The various kings - Vizimir (more his son, Radovid), Henselt, Foltest and Demavend - I all recognise because of the games as well.
Good point. I should have excluded the games as well as they're a great source of familiarity too. Of course that significantly reduces the potential pool of respondents further.
nels1031 wrote: I know feth all about the booksource material, having only played Witcher 3, but man do I feel very strongly that they did my boy Eskel dirty….
He isn't in the books a lot and doesn't really have any significant roles. But that didn't happen to him for sure.
He isn't in the books much because he is busy with...
Spoiler:
his own magically super-powered little girl that could potentially end the world! She is in The Witcher 3 at Kaer Morhen briefly if certain criteria are met, she doesn't say much.
Was anyone else not a fan of Geralt's new armor? It looks nice but it looks like a nice cosplay leather armor you buy at the dealer's room at a major convention. The Nilfgard armor improved though since last season.
I think that's a frequent problem with costumes that start in games, illustrations, and such. They look great in art, but IRL they often come off looking kind of bizarre or fake. The show's rendition isn't awful, but it does stand out. Yennifer's dress has been making the rounds for how absurd it looks on an actual person.
Yeah, that strapless dress seemed very impractical (assuming that was the outfit referenced). I kept thinking there would be a malfunction during an action scene. Is it from the game too? Is his new black leather armor iconic in the game(s)?
Dreadwinter wrote: Something about a curse of the black sun. It has been awhile since I read on that.
Curse of the Black Sun is maybe a real curse but probably not.
Basically, anyone born during a solar eclipse is destined to bring ruin and destruction and all kinds of other things. There is no known cure for the curse (but Witchers contend that all curses have cures). It boils down to nature versus nurture kind of. People believe in the curse of the Black Sun, so children are raised with everyone around them isolating them, bullying them, treating them horribly because they are "destined" to cause all kinds of harm, which inevitably turns them into vengeful angry people who then go about causing a bunch of harm. They are not raised with love and they don't make many if any connections throughout their life. So they end up developing poor social skills and kind of becoming sociopaths. So is it in their nature being cursed? Or is it in their nurture because of how people treat them because they believe in the curse? Geralt often says he isn't sure but he leans more towards the later.
And suddenly as if by magic Ciri had some eyebrows (yes she had them before but being pale Blondey ones kind of blended in)
Watched the first two episodes of s2, enjoyable enough
Also was episode one a story from The Last Wish ? Seem familier but the book was over 10 years ago and at my age what I had for tea is about the limits of my recall
Turnip Jedi wrote: And suddenly as if by magic Ciri had some eyebrows (yes she had them before but being pale Blondey ones kind of blended in)
Watched the first two episodes of s2, enjoyable enough
Also was episode one a story from The Last Wish ? Seem familier but the book was over 10 years ago and at my age what I had for tea is about the limits of my recall
Yup. A modified version. The Witcher version of Beauty and the Beast.
Watched the last two episodes yesterday. I have to say, I didn't like S2 that much. There is clearly a lot happening, but it's cut in such an annoying way, that you switch every 20 seconds to another character. This feels like Punisher S1 and S2 where we acutally don't really see a lot of the main character. Episode 1 was good because it followed a classical take: they travel somewhere, find a mystery and fight a monster. I enjoyed that. Episodes 7 & 8 finally pushed the plot forward. Everything in between? To me, it just felt like filler material.
Turnip Jedi wrote: And suddenly as if by magic Ciri had some eyebrows (yes she had them before but being pale Blondey ones kind of blended in)
Watched the first two episodes of s2, enjoyable enough
Also was episode one a story from The Last Wish ? Seem familier but the book was over 10 years ago and at my age what I had for tea is about the limits of my recall
Yup. A modified version. The Witcher version of Beauty and the Beast.
the witcher does this a few times IIRC, takes a fairy tale and gives it sort of a grim "this is how it really happens" type aprouch, the video game has geralt occasionally make comments about that, someone mentions cinderella and he's like "well what actually hapened was *horriably grim story that vaguely resembles it*
Turnip Jedi wrote: And suddenly as if by magic Ciri had some eyebrows (yes she had them before but being pale Blondey ones kind of blended in)
Watched the first two episodes of s2, enjoyable enough
Also was episode one a story from The Last Wish ? Seem familier but the book was over 10 years ago and at my age what I had for tea is about the limits of my recall
Yup. A modified version. The Witcher version of Beauty and the Beast.
the witcher does this a few times IIRC, takes a fairy tale and gives it sort of a grim "this is how it really happens" type aprouch, the video game has geralt occasionally make comments about that, someone mentions cinderella and he's like "well what actually hapened was *horriably grim story that vaguely resembles it*
Witcher 3 Spoilers:
Spoiler:
In the expansion, Blood and Wine, you straight up go to a fairy tale book with the three little pigs and other fairy tales.
@ Dreadwinter, that sounds proper bonkers, might have to re-install 3 and see if my new PC can cope with it, it made my old one rather grumpy so didnt finish it or get any xpacs
Hanskrampf wrote: Watched the last two episodes yesterday.
I have to say, I didn't like S2 that much. There is clearly a lot happening, but it's cut in such an annoying way, that you switch every 20 seconds to another character. This feels like Punisher S1 and S2 where we acutally don't really see a lot of the main character.
Episode 1 was good because it followed a classical take: they travel somewhere, find a mystery and fight a monster. I enjoyed that.
Episodes 7 & 8 finally pushed the plot forward. Everything in between? To me, it just felt like filler material.
Someone may have told them (after season 1) to try to be more like the books. Because that's how I recall the first few books before I gave up. Some big things surrounded by lots and lots of filler material.
Just finished watching season 2, got into this season a lot more than the first, I won't say I didn't enjoy the first, but this one drew me in better.
I haven't really thought about the technical reasons why I feel that way, haven't tried to analyse it, maybe it was just the time jumps in the first season, whilst I followed the time jumps perfectly fine maybe it stopped me from engaging with it.
warboss wrote: Was anyone else not a fan of Geralt's new armor? It looks nice but it looks like a nice cosplay leather armor you buy at the dealer's room at a major convention. The Nilfgard armor improved though since last season.
Geralts armour felt too much like a video game armour that you might pick up mid to late game.
I didn't hate it, but definitely preferred the one from the first season.
Yeah, it felt too shiny and new. Admittedly, they literally show him making it on screen while he's training Ciri so I can't fault them in that regard. I'd just have preferred something different but that is just an aesthetic preference on my part. I haven't played the games but typically in that genre there are lots of armors to choose from both in games where its just a visual choice and in those where it functionally matters.
Dreadwinter wrote: Something about a curse of the black sun. It has been awhile since I read on that.
Curse of the Black Sun is maybe a real curse but probably not.
Basically, anyone born during a solar eclipse is destined to bring ruin and destruction and all kinds of other things. There is no known cure for the curse (but Witchers contend that all curses have cures). It boils down to nature versus nurture kind of. People believe in the curse of the Black Sun, so children are raised with everyone around them isolating them, bullying them, treating them horribly because they are "destined" to cause all kinds of harm, which inevitably turns them into vengeful angry people who then go about causing a bunch of harm. They are not raised with love and they don't make many if any connections throughout their life. So they end up developing poor social skills and kind of becoming sociopaths. So is it in their nature being cursed? Or is it in their nurture because of how people treat them because they believe in the curse? Geralt often says he isn't sure but he leans more towards the later.
I think in TW3 they consider it a real curse, as it keeps Eskel pretty busy constantly and his kid has some pretty wacky stuff going on in her life. Like that wolf.
Anyways, the point is that Geralt and Eskel are two sides of the same coin, Geralt's side is just shinier.
Speaking of the game, how did the show look at Vessemir in both the game and the books and go "You know what, lets make him unlikable this time. feth that Grandpa stuff."
Dreadwinter wrote: Something about a curse of the black sun. It has been awhile since I read on that.
Curse of the Black Sun is maybe a real curse but probably not.
Basically, anyone born during a solar eclipse is destined to bring ruin and destruction and all kinds of other things. There is no known cure for the curse (but Witchers contend that all curses have cures). It boils down to nature versus nurture kind of. People believe in the curse of the Black Sun, so children are raised with everyone around them isolating them, bullying them, treating them horribly because they are "destined" to cause all kinds of harm, which inevitably turns them into vengeful angry people who then go about causing a bunch of harm. They are not raised with love and they don't make many if any connections throughout their life. So they end up developing poor social skills and kind of becoming sociopaths. So is it in their nature being cursed? Or is it in their nurture because of how people treat them because they believe in the curse? Geralt often says he isn't sure but he leans more towards the later.
I think in TW3 they consider it a real curse, as it keeps Eskel pretty busy constantly and his kid has some pretty wacky stuff going on in her life. Like that wolf.
Anyways, the point is that Geralt and Eskel are two sides of the same coin, Geralt's side is just shinier.
Speaking of the game, how did the show look at Vessemir in both the game and the books and go "You know what, lets make him unlikable this time. feth that Grandpa stuff."
where's the mention of eskel having a child suprise?
I finally watched and overall I liked it. Which is significant since I litterally adored season 1, have watched it multiple times, and have read all the novels after that.
Loved how the story was changed, even significantly, while I still had the feeling that I was watching the same story from novels. My favorite thing was that some characters had much more appearances on screen compared to the novels and they all were portrayed in brilliant way. Tissaia De Vries in particular, but also Istredd and Vesemir and somehow even Fringilla, Vilgefortz, Cahir and Francesca who basically show up only later in the novels.
"Dear Friend" easter egg was awesome .
Only one thing I didn't like.
Spoiler:
In the novels Emhyr's identity is revealed near the very last pages of the last book. The obsession of avoiding re-casts played a key role here, IMHO they should have hired an actor for Duny and a different one for Emhyr. Yes, they're the same guy but years have passed and revealing it now might ruin the ending.
Dara for example is the same actor but looks like another person .
Like season 1 I had the feeling that the show isn't really smooth to watch without knowing the novel's material.
Is the whole Voleth Meir subplot taken from the games? Or completely invented? I have no clue about the games as I never played them.
Blackie wrote: I finally watched and overall I liked it. Which is significant since I litterally adored season 1, have watched it multiple times, and have read all the novels after that.
Loved how the story was changed, even significantly, while I still had the feeling that I was watching the same story from novels. My favorite thing was that some characters had much more appearances on screen compared to the novels and they all were portrayed in brilliant way. Tissaia De Vries in particular, but also Istredd and Vesemir and somehow even Fringilla, Vilgefortz, Cahir and Francesca who basically show up only later in the novels.
"Dear Friend" easter egg was awesome .
Only one thing I didn't like.
Spoiler:
In the novels Emhyr's identity is revealed near the very last pages of the last book. The obsession of avoiding re-casts played a key role here, IMHO they should have hired an actor for Duny and a different one for Emhyr. Yes, they're the same guy but years have passed and revealing it now might ruin the ending.
Dara for example is the same actor but looks like another person .
Like season 1 I had the feeling that the show isn't really smooth to watch without knowing the novel's material.
Is the whole Voleth Meir subplot taken from the games? Or completely invented? I have no clue about the games as I never played them.
completely invented. Based on the slavic folklore legend of Baba Yaga
She shows up in Kaer Morhen if certain conditions are met, for the Battle
I've never seen THAT what conditions?
Oh I don't remember exactly. When you do get her, she sits in the courtyard with her enormous wolf and you don't really get much information out of her, she does fight in the battle though. It might be one of the conditions from the Witcher 2 Save you can choose.
It is more of an easter egg for Eskel than anything else.
Well thoroughly enjoyed the second season. Preferred it to the first one, for a start having the single timeline made it a lot easier to follow (I loved the fourth wall-breaking moment with Jaskier about that bit).
Thought the characters really developed, some awesome action sequences (unarmed Geralt vs. the mob guys in the Temple was fantastic) and thought the guy playing Vesimier was pretty good for the role. I clapped and laughed in excitement like a school kid when he first appeared on screen
Started watching the Witcher season 2, 3 episodes in and I think this might be an advertising campaign for my Native Yorkshire.
So far I have seen 5 or 6 Yorkshire locations.
Episode 1 was a great way to start a show, the story was well done and was believable, also it had Thormund Giantsbane, which always helps!
Episode 2 was a bit meh, big fight at the end was good.
Episode 3 not to be rude... but I think the first impact from the obstacle thingy would have pulverised that lass, not just mess up her hair.
As for the over arching plot, I'm not that invested. Something about it just doesn't grab me, now if the show were to lean on ehat it does best... The Witcher roaming around hunting and fighting big nasty beasty monsters. A monster of the week sort of thing... The X-Files, but with swords.
So does this show still suck? Season one was pretty bad, couldn't even bear to watch the season finale. It's hard to get invested in a show where everyone treats each other with barely-concealed contempt.
Void__Dragon wrote: So does this show still suck? Season one was pretty bad, couldn't even bear to watch the season finale. It's hard to get invested in a show where everyone treats each other with barely-concealed contempt.
I'd go with s'alright not outstanding nor dire, then again I like Jaskier so in a very thin slice of the fanbase
Void__Dragon wrote: So does this show still suck? Season one was pretty bad, couldn't even bear to watch the season finale. It's hard to get invested in a show where everyone treats each other with barely-concealed contempt.
If you considered pretty bad the first season I wouldn't suggest watching season 2. Season 2 has better visual effects and just one timeline, but that's the same show basically.
General consensus about both seasons indicates that this is a great show, I absolutely love it and in fact I thought season 1 was so good when it was released that I bought and read all 8 novels about The Witcher, then re-watched the show again! It might just not be your cup of tea though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
stonehorse wrote: The Witcher roaming around hunting and fighting big nasty beasty monsters. A monster of the week sort of thing... The X-Files, but with swords.
It's something I think it would really bad at this point of the show. Plot from the book is great and doesn't have any monster/minor villain of the week. The witcher roaming and fighting monsters is basically the material of the first two books, which has already been explored in the series, nothing more than the background of the main story.
Rather behind the curve but just finished season 2. I think the first season was way better. This season was way too much wandering forlornly around in the snow and random plot twist reveals.
Flinty wrote: Rather behind the curve but just finished season 2. I think the first season was way better. This season was way too much wandering forlornly around in the snow and random plot twist reveals.
Maybe I just remember Blavikin too much.
Not enough monsters and awesome sword fights.
There aren't many monsters and sword fights in the books too. Probably much less than the tv show actually. IMHO 2nd season issue is being too slow compared to the books' material. It should take 4 seasons, 5 at most, assuming 8 episodes per season to properly cover the whole story, not 7-8. Especially if we get one season every two years.
For what it's worth, Liam Hemsworth is a good choice as well though I'd have preferred them just casting him as a different witcher rather than Geralt. Regardless, Henry was only about 1/3 the focus of the show unfortunately despite being the titular character (at least in season 1) so it's less of a change than normal.
Yeah, there's the quote from the Xmen 97 revival showrunner stating that fellow writers in the Witcher writers' room actively disliked the books and game and made fun of it. That's not a recipe for a fan favorite no matter how much the actor is a fan (which Cavill was in addition to WHFB and 40k).
It's a shame to lose him, but if the writers are messing and not liking the source material (why the heck are you working on the project then?); then I can well see how a fan would just want to walk away.
It's a shame to lose him, its been rather great having a "geek" in the limelight that he's been in and having genuine interest in geeky things. We've known for years that there's a good few dnd/geeky sorts in hollywood and such but they tend to keep it more private - he openly celebrated things.
Yeah, the show always had an odd feeling to it. With all the rumors about the writers floating about and now Henry leaving the show, my hopes for a decent S3 are gone.
"Alright, so, I've got this idea." "Yeah?" "You know how Henry Cavil is basically perfect casting for Geralt and embodies that character through and through?" "Yep! He's great!" "Ok, well, I thought that maybe we replace him with a Hemsworth." "Ok... well I mean I guess they're not making any Thor or Avenger films at the moment, so Chris could probably do it. He's certainly got the physicali-" "No, no, not Chris. Liam." "Liam?" "Yeah." "The one with no charisma and seemingly no personality beyond looking slightly like his better looking brother?" "That's the one!" "Well... I 'spose it would take attention away from us screwing over the story and making gak up rather than using the actual books. So why not. Let's get Charismaless Hemsworth to play a role that everyone loves Henry in already!"
To be fair I think Chris Hemsworth would be a terrible choice. Why get a funny charasmatic tan guy to play a dull near emotionless pale mutant monster hunter.
Given Cavill was a fan of the Witcher, was extremely excited to play Geralt, and is a bit of a nerd... him leaving makes me think Season 3 is probably going to suck.
The series always felt like such wasted potential, I guess Cavill thought the same way.
Him and Joey Batey were the highlights of the show and what were keeping it afloat. Yenn's character never really landed with me.
I'll give it a watch, given I already pay for netflix it's not like it costs me any extra to try it, but my expectations are set low.
Kind of a bummer, but also opens up the possibility that overall the show could improve in certain ways since Hemsworth’s asking price is probably a fraction of Cavills.
That kind of casting change won't work as well as the type of casting time skip changes in House of the Dragon. I don't even know if I see the point in the attempt. This was a pretty enjoyable show for the most part, I was looking forward to more of it. I know it played a bit loose with the lore but as a show I found it more enjoyable than amazons LOTR stuff.
I'm randomly trying to think now of TV shows that managed to swap lead actors without people spotting.
I know Stargate did it, but there was a pretty big chunk of time between the films and the TV series. Both in reality and also in the setting itself. Though if I recall right they also changed at least one actor between the launch episodes of the first TV series and the series proper.
Besides his return to Superman that was just announced? James Bond is open for a new actor...
I believe he's making a WW2 spy flick with Guy Richie. While that is great news, as the pairing was excellent in The Man From U.N.K.L.E., it probably means he has fairly low expectations of landing the Bond role.
Overread wrote: I'm randomly trying to think now of TV shows that managed to swap lead actors without people spotting.
I know Stargate did it, but there was a pretty big chunk of time between the films and the TV series. Both in reality and also in the setting itself. Though if I recall right they also changed at least one actor between the launch episodes of the first TV series and the series proper.
Star Gate didn't really swap lead actor though. It swapped the lead character and I think most fans would agree Mitchell's tenure just wasn't the same as O'Neil's. Very few shows (only one that comes to mind is Doctor Who) have switched who plays their lead character and managed.
Having to find a new actor to play your lead character is, IMO, almost always a bad thing. It signals trouble on the set and the dynamics of how the show is made. People don't quit jobs they love. They don't even quit jobs they dislike so long as they're well paid. People quit jobs they hate.
Overread wrote: I'm randomly trying to think now of TV shows that managed to swap lead actors without people spotting.
I know Stargate did it, but there was a pretty big chunk of time between the films and the TV series. Both in reality and also in the setting itself. Though if I recall right they also changed at least one actor between the launch episodes of the first TV series and the series proper.
Star Gate didn't really swap lead actor though. It swapped the lead character and I think most fans would agree Mitchell's tenure just wasn't the same as O'Neil's. Very few shows (only one that comes to mind is Doctor Who) have switched who plays their lead character and managed.
Having to find a new actor to play your lead character is, IMO, almost always a bad thing. It signals trouble on the set and the dynamics of how the show is made. People don't quit jobs they love. They don't even quit jobs they dislike so long as they're well paid. People quit jobs they hate.
He is talking going from Stargate the movie to Stargate SG1 where both actors were playing the same character.
Overread wrote: I'm randomly trying to think now of TV shows that managed to swap lead actors without people spotting.
I know Stargate did it, but there was a pretty big chunk of time between the films and the TV series. Both in reality and also in the setting itself. Though if I recall right they also changed at least one actor between the launch episodes of the first TV series and the series proper.
It worked better since it was a movie to television transition, rather than just a jump between seasons of a TV show. In the show they actually hint very cheekily at the two O'neills (one spelled with only one L) being separate characters, although I don't think that's actually canon (it's one guy).
They didn't change actors for any one character that I recall; some characters rotated in and out (Daniel Jackson was replaced by Jonas Quinn in season 6, for example) but the same actors played the same characters.
I quite liked how Due South did it. For the 3rd and 4th seasons, the detective was effectively played by someone else, but it was done as if the new guy was secretly replacing the old guy as the old guy had to go into hiding or undercover or something. It was so blatant it was amusing, and they played it up a lot as well. Easier to do in a comedy though.
Flinty wrote: I quite liked how Due South did it. For the 3rd and 4th seasons, the detective was effectively played by someone else, but it was done as if the new guy was secretly replacing the old guy as the old guy had to go into hiding or undercover or something. It was so blatant it was amusing, and they played it up a lot as well. Easier to do in a comedy though.
Oh yes that was handled well, but I also agree its easier to achieve in a less serious series.
The recasting in and of itself doesn't bother me that much.
What bothers me more is that Henry was a big fan of The Witcher, it seemed like a passion project for him, and he stated at some point he's in it for the long haul so long as the writers write good stories and it stays true to the source material.
The fact he's leaving makes me worry it's going even more downhill, the first two seasons weren't great, a few high points but also a lot of mediocre points, certainly not the epic it could have been. With Henry getting out, the expectation to me is that future seasons will be the same or worse.
Shame to hear Henry Cavill is leaving, but it's not too surprising. He didn't seem too pleased about Season 2 during the interview circuit but was professional enough to not to throw any shade.
Besides his return to Superman that was just announced? James Bond is open for a new actor...
I believe he's making a WW2 spy flick with Guy Richie. While that is great news, as the pairing was excellent in The Man From U.N.K.L.E., it probably means he has fairly low expectations of landing the Bond role.
I loved him in The Man from U.N.K.L.E. so I'm glad to hear he's doing another spy flick.
Thats a shame, suspect it won't get past S4 then, and they can blame in on the Hemsworth lad rather than writing room problems and the other main cast members wanting a better payday as the Flix seems to be less money splashy than in the before times
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I saw Blood Origin has released, didn't really even notice it was being released, seems pretty divisive, anyone watched it yet?
Watched the first episode last night. Nothing about it screams “Witcher” just plays like a random high fantasy world. Which it is doing fine with so far. I guess that’s one issue with setting things in the far past. Not a lot of recognizable stuff. Someone more versed in the lore might get more out it it from a world building slash history POV, but I’m just enjoying the general D&D nature of it.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I might give Blood Origin a bash. Didn’t enjoy The Witcher due to the Bard, but will give the world another bash.
I must admit I turned on the new series and was disgusted that the Bard was in it.put up with five mins of his gak and turned it off. Turned it on again FF through it to find its about another Bard and turned it off again.
Watched the first episode. Bard doesn’t bother me at all, and he’s only in the first five minutes or so, as a sort of framing device. After that it’s all elves. Wasn’t bad. Wasn’t particularly great. Then I switched over and binged thru the new Dragon Age cartoon. Netflix’s animated high fantasy stories (also usually video game based) tend to be so much better, or at least much prettier to look at.
It was OK. Popcorn high fantasy. Nothing really awesome or outstanding. But I enjoyed it for what it was. Go in with low/moderate expectations and it meets those.
It has the issue of ensemble casts and run times, where you don’t get as much character development as you’d like. But if they added a couple hours to help fill in those backstories, it would feel sluggish and bloated.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I saw Blood Origin has released, didn't really even notice it was being released, seems pretty divisive, anyone watched it yet?
Critics and the audience hates it. I wouldn't call that divisive.
It seemed like it was getting review bombed due to all the stuff with Henry Cavill, but then also some people (non-critics) were giving it 4 and 5 star reviews saying it was only okay but they wanted to give it 5 stars to counter all the 1 stars, lol.
Makes it pretty hard to guess how good it actually is.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seemed like it was getting review bombed due to all the stuff with Henry Cavill, but then also some people (non-critics) were giving it 4 and 5 star reviews saying it was only okay but they wanted to give it 5 stars to counter all the 1 stars, lol
Not just Cavill, it has (GASP!) black characters in it! And women! And a black woman is one of the leads - that's recipe for rabid screeching and hatebombing no matter how good it is these days. Especially in a show set in universe certain really unpleasant parts of ""fandom"" call white/slavic fantasy (which is really sad/hilarious if you know anything about Sapkowski and what he said about slavic fantasy settings in the most shitstormy article he ever penned).
I'll agree with the above opinions, it's... Okay, I guess? I wish the story was actually written by Sapkowski, but it is what it is. IMO the writers made a mistake of setting it too far back in time making it feel less Witcher-y (only the really avid book readers will have any clue which of these characters are/will be important, and who, judging by obscurity, won't survive for long, which is surprisingly accurate even though it's a new story) but props to them for making the entire cast non-human. I can't really think of other live action fantasy shows that did this. There are also annoying details that really should have been given more screen time/less rushed, but I wouldn't call it exactly bad.
In terms of fantasy I have enjoyed greatly shows like Shadow and Bone, Shanara, Into the Badlands The Outpost which all have plenty of women and diverse cast - its pretty common to have them and they don't even have to be stupidly OP like Discovery's one woman show.
I might give it another go if the Piece of Gak bard idiot never appears again as apparenlty he only pollutes the first scene?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seemed like it was getting review bombed due to all the stuff with Henry Cavill, but then also some people (non-critics) were giving it 4 and 5 star reviews saying it was only okay but they wanted to give it 5 stars to counter all the 1 stars, lol
Not just Cavill, it has (GASP!) black characters in it! And women! And a black woman is one of the leads - that's recipe for rabid screeching and hatebombing no matter how good it is these days. Especially in a show set in universe certain really unpleasant parts of ""fandom"" call white/slavic fantasy (which is really sad/hilarious if you know anything about Sapkowski and what he said about slavic fantasy settings in the most shitstormy article he ever penned).
Not sure I buy the review bombing narrative on this one. Its sitting well into the rotten category on Rotten Tomatoes with critics at 33%.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It seemed like it was getting review bombed due to all the stuff with Henry Cavill, but then also some people (non-critics) were giving it 4 and 5 star reviews saying it was only okay but they wanted to give it 5 stars to counter all the 1 stars, lol
Not just Cavill, it has (GASP!) black characters in it! And women! And a black woman is one of the leads - that's recipe for rabid screeching and hatebombing no matter how good it is these days. Especially in a show set in universe certain really unpleasant parts of ""fandom"" call white/slavic fantasy (which is really sad/hilarious if you know anything about Sapkowski and what he said about slavic fantasy settings in the most shitstormy article he ever penned).
Not sure I buy the review bombing narrative on this one. Its sitting well into the rotten category on Rotten Tomatoes with critics at 33%.
Just a bad product.
It seems to me that if something is mediocre or below mediocre, squeezing in a diverse cast will draw criticism that they put that stuff higher on the list of importance than actually having a good story, and then it'll get scrutinised for bad writing even more.
I still haven't watched it yet, but I was watching a review that was critical of the characters not having any depth or realism to their decision making and scenes progressing in a way that came across as being written like amatuerish fan fiction where they had an idea of a visual element and wrote a scene around it rather than putting a character in the scene and thinking about how they should behave based on their personality and whatnot.
That sort of thing seems like a criticism in many book adaptions where the screen writers aren't putting in as much time, effort and expertise to develop scenes and dialogue/action around those scenes as the original author might have put in when writing the books.
I'll watch it eventually, and usually I don't mind generic fantasy stuff just for some mild entertainment, but there is a part of me that likes The Witcher universe and thinks the show could have been something great instead of "mediocre generic fantasy"... but that's probably just my own fan bias
AllSeeingSkink wrote: ... thinks the show could have been something great instead of "mediocre generic fantasy"... but that's probably just my own fan bias
Well, in order for it to have been that it would have needed a writing staff that didn't have open disdain for the source material.
I don't understand how Blood Origin is being literally eviscerated on r/TheWitcher and r/TheWitcherNetflix, but somehow on DakkaDakka people are like, "Yeah, this show is decent, pretty solid, not bad." Are y'all somehow pounding the Rite-Aid harder than Reddit? The trailers alone are offensively awful.
Not just Cavill, it has (GASP!) black characters in it! And women! And a black woman is one of the leads - that's recipe for rabid screeching and hatebombing no matter how good it is these days.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: ... thinks the show could have been something great instead of "mediocre generic fantasy"... but that's probably just my own fan bias
Well, in order for it to have been that it would have needed a writing staff that didn't have open disdain for the source material.
Exactly. They really went mask off with how much they're explicitly using the Witcher for nothing except to exploit its existing brand and not because of any interest in properly adapting or expanding on the source material. It's funny because they got exactly what they wanted with Blood Origins, no Geralt for them to worry about having to follow in terms of characterization and the supporting characters, far enough in the past in a general mythical event that they have effective carte blanche to do what they wanted and they came up with this joke of a show? Pacing being terrible and having a constant "tell don't show" for exposition alongside forgettable and lots of redundant characters makes you wonder what the heck they were thinking when they were writing up the framework for the show.
Feels more like someone wrote down a generic horribly run DnD session that somehow got translated to the big screen. So they ended up proving a lot of people right that Cavill was likely one of the few, people that tried to keep them on task for the first 2 seasons of the Witcher and if the writers had their way with what they wanted completely with Geralt's story and depiction, we would end up with something like Blood Origins, and it really does show they're talentless hacks that can't even write their way out of a paper bag.
Thing is this situation with the Witcher is honestly nothing new. If anything its very standard practice that adaptations of books/other media in the US (especially but not exclusively) media gets - messed around
It's actually the norm and often as not it seems it only works because enough of the new fanbase are fresh to the media and thus don't come pre-loaded with as many demands/expectations. So the studio can mess around with their statistics of viewer feedback, theories of market potential and target market and all and if they play those cards right they get a new market with an established brand name and all.
Witcher is being different because it started out well and then fell and then the lead actor left; which is the new thing. Most times the actors just stick with it until the production stops being made. So this gives a new angle and I think its increased the whiplash reaction from not just established fans, but also the newfanbase the series had grown for itself.
In the end will it really change anything? I'd like to think that the number of times a book/game has been badly adapted and has backfired on the studio might be a lesson; coupled with how many times a faithful adaptation works. Heck Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are prime examples of a good followed by a bad adaptation; and that's even with LotR getting changed and chopped around a lot.
Generationally, the people who played the Witcher Games have a lot of overlap with Netflix and streaming users. Witcher isn't on network TV. You have to go out and get a subscription to watch it.
The audience is narrower, more specifically interested, and more nerdy.
You never feth with the source material with nerds. Not unless you do really really well, because nerds are going to rip it to shreds.
And to be clear: I've read Witcher now. I think it's profoundly mah. I have an extremely high opinion of the Last Wish. The rest? Bargain bin general high fantasy. Not bad. Not very memorable. Maybe it's better in its native polish.
And the tv show sucks. I was a hard sell in S1 because I thought the writers used bad gimmicks. After I read the Last Wish I was my opinion of it lowered further because the Last Wish is easily adaptable right out of the book into a series and instead they employed a lot of bad gimmicks.
And S2 sucked so I don't even care about S3.
I am not a fan of the Witcher generally. And I think the show sucks.
Now the fans not only think the show sucks, but they actively hate it.
Started watching the new show/prequel last night. Done before the band got together. They made elves and dwarves the native inhabitants of the world I guess.
But also, it was just fething boring.
Forget all the other stuff that people don't like. It was just boring.
A story about the first Witchers being created doesn't need to start with a bunch of nonsense. It should be starting right in the middle of the conjunction of the spheres. Portals tore open. Realities bled together. Monsters poured in from other worlds and it was chaos.
Let's see that. Let's look at the, basically, extinction level event that was TCotS and then let's see some wizards get together with some warriors to form the foundation of the witcher schools before they really knew what worked and were still figuring things out.
I started watching it, it's pretty poor, but I'll probably keep watching it because I'm a sucker for wanting to find out how things end (or maybe I could just read a synopsis, lol).
Lance845 wrote: Started watching the new show/prequel last night. Done before the band got together. They made elves and dwarves the native inhabitants of the world I guess.
But also, it was just fething boring.
Forget all the other stuff that people don't like. It was just boring.
A story about the first Witchers being created doesn't need to start with a bunch of nonsense.
I don't think that's the problem, I just think it's written poorly. Great stories can and do often start slow, it lets you establish the characters and see how they develop
But all the other stuff.... that's why (IMO) it feels boring. The pacing doesn't feel right, the dialogue isn't great, you don't feel like the characters are having real conversations, there's no sense of scale to the world, the characters teleport around with no concept of time or distance related to the viewer. I feel like the backing music didn't do a good job of conveying feeling, it seemed like it was always there when most of the time it wasn't needed (that was just my perception as a casual viewer anyway, I didn't go through and count the minutes a backing track was playing, lol), but then when background music and audio effects were needed it didn't rouse any emotion. The main bard chick lacks presence, she just feels like some random modern average young woman if that makes sense, she lacked personality whether that personality was gritty or light hearted or whatever, she just felt flat and boring to me, I dunno how much it's bad acting or bad dialogue. For example...
Spoiler:
When her sister died, that was an opportunity for her to have an outburst, or get angry, or SOMETHING to show her personality, but for such an impactful event she acted it so flat. It could have been woven into her motivation so much more.
Nothing feels impactful because it's not grounded in good writing. It feels like fan fiction by someone who doesn't understand how to build that foundation. I think that's why it's getting so many criticisms as "generic fantasy", in this context "generic" just means "written by a mediocre writer". So you have these scenes that are big spectacles, but they're not impactful. For example...
Spoiler:
When main chick and main dude meet up with asian bad arse lady, she's like "nah I'm not coming with you", then they fight and she's like "yeah, cool, I'm coming with you now, apparently the ancestors will it or summin". Like, could the writers not come up with a better way that asian bad arse lady would be convinced to come along? They had the sword thing but that kind of just fizzled as not being a good reason to join up, but apparently a random fight is a good reason to join up?
I tend to watch TV on my PC, and this show failed to ensnare my interests to the point where I was occasionally minimising Netflix to check my email or facebook or whatever, lol.
Who the hell cast Lenny Henry in a serious role, the dude can't not be a comedian, the way he talks, the intonation, the pacing of his speech, the dude is a natural comedian.
I don't have a problem with the diversity hires in the cast, but I can see why some people do. It makes it feel like a modern big western city, like London or LA or something (the accents make it lean toward feeling like London ). I think the way to do racial diversity well is to use it like how it is in the real world. Different races come from different places and have different cultures, there can be places where diverse peoples combine (like an in-world version of a London) but it just feels weird to have a clan that, if I understood correctly, membership is hereditary, but then it is made up of a mixture of European caucasians, East Asians, South Asians, Africans, etc. It just doesn't feel real, it's like someone's idea of racial diversity equals modern London, lol.
Let's see that. Let's look at the, basically, extinction level event that was TCotS and then let's see some wizards get together with some warriors to form the foundation of the witcher schools before they really knew what worked and were still figuring things out.
Although I like The Witcher universe, I don't have a great knowledge of the lore, but I think Witchers were created by humans some time after the Conjunction?
feth do I not care about a Bard named Lark.
Yeah I agree, but I think that's just bad writing. I cared about a Hobbit named Sam. Tolkien took the most insignificant of people and made them the people you care about most.
if you believe dodgy wizards.
