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.

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".

epronovost wrote:

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.

epronovost wrote:

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.

 AduroT wrote:

epronovost wrote:

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.

Wife and I enjoyed the season.

I think the time-jump thing would be muted in next season as all three storylines met at the end.

 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.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 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.

Here's a brief rundown of some stuff...

https://witcher.fandom.com/wiki/Witcher

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".

There were a few times where using Igni would have been very useful.

 Snrub wrote:

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.

Not played the game or read the books

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.

Anyway seemed interesting and will watch more.

 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.

 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?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Snrub wrote:

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.

Why did she warn him if he was riding off anyway?

 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.

Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.

Easy E wrote:They were essentially magical batteries.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:They're basically living magical batteries. You find out more later on.

Right. Magical batteries. That's what I was assuming, but just thought I'd confirm it.

Mr Morden wrote:Is Renfri in the game - my fav character so far.

She's mentioned at some point, but never seen.