Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

honestly the armor simply looks like a fluted gothic armor. it looks differant sure but fine,

I haven't played the games more than 2-3 hours and never read the books. Finishing up the series now. It's fine. The CGI is spotty, the writing/acting is meh at times (especially episode 6), and some of the costuming is bad. Very tired of those awful crowns.

Just finished my binge. Enjoyed it all around, I thought Cavil nailed it for the most part. Wish there were more than 8 episodes.. now we gotta wait a year + for season 2? meh

 Necros wrote:
Just finished my binge. Enjoyed it all around, I thought Cavil nailed it for the most part. Wish there were more than 8 episodes.. now we gotta wait a year + for season 2? meh

Yeah, I did a 24 hour binge on the show, and while I enjoyed the hell out of it, I was very disappointed that it was only 8 episodes. You're exactly right though, Cavill crushed the role, even down to the voice.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I haven't played the games more than 2-3 hours and never read the books. Finishing up the series now. It's fine. The CGI is spotty, the writing/acting is meh at times (especially episode 6), and some of the costuming is bad. Very tired of those awful crowns.

Spoiler:

I think my biggest actual complaint would be that the battle tactics in episode 8 are absolutely beyond stupid and the idea of just sacrificing mages for minimal value makes no sense to me.

Only watched the first episode so far, and I am liking it though I feel it has a few issues. If they get hammered out in the following episodes then all is well.

Things I did not like:


What I liked:


I guess side note, I only played a few hours of the first Witcher game, but am very much a book fan.

kurhanik wrote:
*snip*

For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*

 LordofHats wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
*snip*

For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*

They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them. Like at the feast in Cintra, they referred to the queen's battle as having happened decades before, but shortly after in a Geralt scene, they mentioned that the battle had just taken place.

BrianDavion wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I haven't played the games more than 2-3 hours and never read the books. Finishing up the series now. It's fine. The CGI is spotty, the writing/acting is meh at times (especially episode 6), and some of the costuming is bad. Very tired of those awful crowns.

Spoiler:

I think my biggest actual complaint would be that the battle tactics in episode 8 are absolutely beyond stupid and the idea of just sacrificing mages for minimal value makes no sense to me.

Spoiler:

Are you refering the the nifgardian tacics of sacrificing mages to shoot fireballs? I saw that as an important scene to develop the CHARACTER of the Nilfgardians. Your life, to Niflgard, is worthless except by how you can serve the state. they will happily use you all up for any advantage.

I absolutely understand the intent, but still consider it idiotic tactics.

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
*snip*

For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*

They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them. Like at the feast in Cintra, they referred to the queen's battle as having happened decades before, but shortly after in a Geralt scene, they mentioned that the battle had just taken place.

actually at the feast they said her FIRST battle had happened when she was "ciri's age" not that battle she was at in the feast.

BrianDavion wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
*snip*

For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

Having finished it, I liked it but I loathed the pacing. Ciri spent most of the series through to the last handful of episodes just standing in line waiting for the rest of the plot to catch up to her. I think Yennifer's entire backstory was an utter waste of time and left me with nothing but hating her guts when she and Geralt finally cross paths (seriously, this character is an absolute waste of space up until that point and I hate her anyway, so why was my time wasted?). I think the unclear bouncing back and forth through time, with no indiciation that it's happening, and the amount of time the apparently main plot of the story spends just in a holding position while we catch up on Geralt and Yennifer leaves the first half of the season really lopsided and I wish they'd told the story in a different way. It's not like it killed the series for me though so *shrug*

They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them. Like at the feast in Cintra, they referred to the queen's battle as having happened decades before, but shortly after in a Geralt scene, they mentioned that the battle had just taken place.

actually at the feast they said her FIRST battle had happened when she was "ciri's age" not that battle she was at in the feast.

Yes, that battle, was then referred to in a later scene as just happening, thereby showing that there was a difference in the time of the scenes we were viewing.

 djones520 wrote:
They made multiple references in the 1st episode of the timeline that events were occurring, you probably just missed them.

I'm not even going to nitpick being too subtle about something as critical as what and when.

If we're going to get down to it, why is the story told this way at all? We see Ciri in the first episode and her story promptly becomes "just reminding you Ciri exists back to Geralt now" for basically the entire season while we play narrative catch up and I don't see the point. If Ciri did anything but "still on the run" and was trying to find Geralt or something and picked up stories about his life on the way I'd get it. That would make sense. But no. It's literally just occasional reminders her character exists and is running while absolutely nothing of note happens until near the end of the season.

It's not creative. It doesn't improve anything. It's confusing at its worse and a negligible ploy at it's best. I think it was mentioned earlier in this thread the books don't tell things chronologically, but I can't fathom they bungled the mechanics of keeping the audience grounded this badly and for no real reason.

For those who know the books, how faithful has the series been to the books so far? Any glaring/unnecessary changes? And how much has the series covered so far (ie # of books)?

 Snrub wrote:
For those who know the books, how faithful has the series been to the books so far? Any glaring/unnecessary changes? And how much has the series covered so far (ie # of books)?

reasonably faithful but there are definate changes. most of the changes are pretty understandable though. Proably the most glaring change is Ciri in Broklion though. the tale in the books is VERY VERY differant

Just finished the series.

Not flawless by any stretch, CGI was at times terrible (Dragon, mostly) and sometimes the dialogue was goofy (for example, when Porcupine Man says with utter conviction : “I’ve sworn to keep my helmet on! I’ve taken a Knights Vow!” A dude promptly walks up and takes it off him. This is not the way.) but was an overall a very fun ride.

Added bonus: I can cross “Watch a woman with severe hunchback and other deformities have sex with a dude while a bunch of old people watch” off my bucket list. Thanks Netflix! Thought that one was going to be costlier than my planned trip to Mongolia.

I watched most of the first and second episodes last night, and I have to say that much of the time it felt kind of like a series for people who already know what's going on.

I think the first half of the season is a complete drag. Once you get to the end though most of the wonkiness is gone and hopefully the next season will be more straight forward.

 LordofHats wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
*snip*

For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

^This. As someone that hasn't had any contact with the IP before this series I didn't notice it to start with then all of a sudden there's a scene (I forget which) that made me go "oh ok, this isn't linear" whilst my brain tried to work out where the previous 2-3 hours of the show all really sit on the timeline.

Hell, I watched the first two episodes last night, and only on this page of this thread did I find out that the season isn't linear. I thought all the story lines were simultaneous, so at least now I can continue the series forewarned.

 Baragash wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
*snip*

For your last point, it becomes blatantly obvious from episode 3 onwards that the series is bouncing back and forth through time (Geralt's storyline in those episodes is in the past, while the events in Cintra are in the 'present').

The series however does an absolute piss gak job letting the viewer know this, leaving them to be bushwacked for a few moments later in the series when it becomes obvious.

^This. As someone that hasn't had any contact with the IP before this series I didn't notice it to start with then all of a sudden there's a scene (I forget which) that made me go "oh ok, this isn't linear" whilst my brain tried to work out where the previous 2-3 hours of the show all really sit on the timeline.

It's episode four. Right when Calanthe shows up alive and well. That's when you go "wait wtf?" and then you quickly realize the series has been time jumping and offering the most easily missed of cues as the only indication it's been doing so.

I thought that was great. Henry Cavil just nails Geralt's voice from the games. Adds such a layer of authenticity to it all. Yennifer was an interesting character - queen bitch of the universe - and reminded me exactly of why I stuck with Triss in the games. Ciri was fine, the only issue being that her plotline was basically "Don't find Geralt right until the end", so she did a lot of running around without going anywhere. Dandelion was incredible!

Liked the takes on all the various short stories. The human vs human fights were appropriately brutal and fun to watch. Honestly not a lot of monster-killing, which surprised me.

I also liked the non-linear storytelling aspect of it. I read part of Gamespot's review where the reviewer spends a while going on about how awful the show is because it switches to different points in time without warning and never explains anything. Made me worried that the show would be impossible to follow. It was't. It was easy to follow once you got a few episodes in and figured out what they were doing.

Either way, really looking forward to season 2, although I do fear that eventually they will run out of story and won't move onto the plotlines from the games as the dude who invented The Witcher has a real problem with the games.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Hell, I watched the first two episodes last night, and only on this page of this thread did I find out that the season isn't linear. I thought all the story lines were simultaneous, so at least now I can continue the series forewarned.

Pretty sure you would have figured it out on your own. We revisit characters who die in earlier episodes pretty frequently.

Triss is the games is a loooot less nice when you realize that for the first 2 games it was basicly "ohh your memories gone? TIME TO STEAL YOU FROM MY FRIEND!"

I've got my eyes closed in this thread to try and avoid spoilers, I'm only up to episode 3 and you guys are awful

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?

I've always wanted to read the books, but want to read them before I see them on TV, I don't want to ruin the whole book series by watching this season, lol. I don't like reading a book when I know all the major plot points beforehand (much more bearable to watch a TV series when knowing the ending).

Obviously I know the ending to the books because that's where the games invent their story from, just don't want to ruin all the bits in between for myself.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?

My understanding is that they cover most of the short stories that serve as the "prequel" to the main novels, with only limited coverage of the books themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Either way, really looking forward to season 2, although I do fear that eventually they will run out of story and won't move onto the plotlines from the games as the dude who invented The Witcher has a real problem with the games.

I think that has more to do with his first agreement with CDPR being less than stellar. They just announced a new agreement to continue the license for CDPR, alongside a tidbit that makes me think Sapkowski got a muuuuuuuch better deal this time around, with a non-zero chance of some historical acknowledgement for how well the franchise has done.

Sterling191 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?

My understanding is that they cover most of the short stories that serve as the "prequel" to the main novels, with only limited coverage of the books themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Either way, really looking forward to season 2, although I do fear that eventually they will run out of story and won't move onto the plotlines from the games as the dude who invented The Witcher has a real problem with the games.

I think that has more to do with his first agreement with CDPR being less than stellar. They just announced a new agreement to continue the license for CDPR, alongside a tidbit that makes me think Sapkowski got a muuuuuuuch better deal this time around, with a non-zero chance of some historical acknowledgement for how well the franchise has done.

The bolded would be a shame if true. The reason his previous deal was "less than stellar" was his own disdain for games as a medium, he thought he was taking CDPR for a ride and the games would go nowhere, and when they became a huge financial and critical success while the vast majority of the world didn't have a clue who he was, he acted like a bitter, juvenile wee gak for years. If he wants to demand more now to renew the license, fine, but he shouldn't be rewarded for his own snobbery and bile last time around.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I've got my eyes closed in this thread to try and avoid spoilers, I'm only up to episode 3 and you guys are awful

BUT, can someone answer me, how much of the books does the season cover?

I've always wanted to read the books, but want to read them before I see them on TV, I don't want to ruin the whole book series by watching this season, lol. I don't like reading a book when I know all the major plot points beforehand (much more bearable to watch a TV series when knowing the ending).

Obviously I know the ending to the books because that's where the games invent their story from, just don't want to ruin all the bits in between for myself.

Be warned. The books are English translations from Polish. They are not bad but they read like their native language. The Last Wish is the "first book" and is a collection of short stories with a framing device story set around them.

For someone who did not read the source material, I think the series could be a solid C. A little rough around the edges, but otherwise decent filler entertainment you watch, enjoy and forget.

As someone who did, in fact, read and enjoy the source material... Damn, that hurt. Badly.

I did not expect much of what made Sapkowski's prose worth reading to make the transition, but when the showrunners take the narrative skeleton of a story, rip it out and use the twitching, bloody remains as a basis for an episode, it almost becomes too much to bear.

I think I watched the entire thing the way one might watch a horrible car accident. I just could not turn away from the horror of it all.

Just finished the whole season. It’s better, than I expected. But I expected it to be utter gak.
I’ve read the books, then played the games, so there is that - it was most likely easier for me to follow the plot. Understanding, that the show is always a simplification of the book, because otherwise there is too much to fit in, i can see why it’s necessary to let some things go. The story unrolled in an ok manner for the most part.
For me it was getting better and better, episode 7 got meh and in the end, episode 8 had very few redeeming qualities.
Biggest pros: Geralt, Dandelion, the head sorceress (can’t remember her name, soz), Ciri was pretty good, sword fights, sprinkled in humor, and they didn’t turn it into a PG series.
I enjoyed it in general.
Oof, but it is Netflix.. so we get a mostly generic fantasy instead of “Witcher”. And battles suck (two swarms of people swinging weapons at each other while the camera keeps jumping every 1,5 seconds). We get miscasts of most female roles, of some elves, dwarves, dryads, which is pretty annoying, considering it’s based on a story, which is set in a harsh Slavic folklore. Somehow HBO managed without filling a quota on every race for the 7 kingdoms (we don’t see black white walkers, for example). And I could argue which source material is more gritty/detailed. I believe the author has described his characters in a precise manner for a reason, and it is an important part of the overall creation. Otherwise what is the point of describing at all.
What it leads to is that the atmosphere of Witcher is not there, for the most part, which is a shame.
Sometimes, especially it was prominent in the last episode, we get logic loopholes. It also becomes difficult to track who is where and how they got there, why that happens to X and why Y decided to do that. And I’ve read the books twice.
It doesn’t help, that we get generic “LETS DO THIS!”, generic. angry/determined/sad faces which is a an odd add to the mix of somewhat decent acting of other participants of the series.
With how stories were rearranged from the books, some of the drama is not there, which could help the audience really feel something.
Costumes and cgi on a budget were already discussed to bits, but I find it to be lesser offenders.

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.

 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