# Witcher (Netflix)



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2019)

The Witcher series is coming out soon. I've read the books and played the game, so I am eager to see what Netflix delivers.

They just posted some Character Introductions.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 20, 2019)

The first season is out on Netflix. Watched the first episode, and so far I like it. It's been a long time since I read the books, but some memories are coming back watching it, and I found it nailed some of the atmosphere and feeling (particularly the whole reception of the Witcher in the public eye) quite well.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 20, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> There.
> 
> Are.
> 
> ...




I think ST3 might have been my favorite season.  I didn't like 2 but 3 was pretty damn awesome. 


anyway, I didn't know Witcher was out, I'll have to take a look.  I do hope it's good.


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Nebulous (Dec 20, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Interesting! Having just finished ST3, I have to say that it was good, but while I thought that 2 lagged at times (esp. the 11 subplot), it was overall better than 3. ST3 was never as fully compelling to me.
> 
> I'll wait to see what people have to say about the Witcher; too little time to waste on bad TV.




Yeah, the 11 subplot was so bad and poorly done they pretended it never happened in Season 3. I wonder if they'll pick it up again in 4?

I read a few great reviews on Witcher, but they say it's complex without having read the books.


----------



## Zaukrie (Dec 20, 2019)

Definitely looking forward to watching this!


----------



## lowkey13 (Dec 20, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 20, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> I read a few great reviews on Witcher, but they say it's complex without having read the books.



Good! 

I’ve not read the books, but I don’t want dumbed down media that assumes I can’t follow complexity.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Dec 20, 2019)

If you think there are too many shows now:

_The Witcher is just one of the many big-budget, ambitious fantasy series you’ll be able to watch on TV in the coming years. Amazon is investing billions of dollars in a show based on J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. (The company is also developing shows based on Conan the Barbarian and The Wheel of Time, a popular series of novels by Robert Jordan.) Showtime is making a TV show based on the fantasy book series The Kingkiller Chronicle. And HBO, for its part, isn’t quite ready to let Westeros go: It has already ordered a Game of Thrones prequel, titled House of the Dragon, straight to series. _

However, if I were a betting man, I bet the Showtime show never gets finished...


----------



## Umbran (Dec 20, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I'll wait to see what people have to say about the Witcher; too little time to waste on bad TV.




Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus: "The world of _The Witcher_ still only feels half-formed as it gallops onto screens, but Henry Cavill brings brawny charisma to a series teeming with subversive fantasy elements and dark humor. "


----------



## Blackrat (Dec 21, 2019)

I’m three episodes in and I like it. I think, without any preknowledge of the Witcher world, it might be a bit complex for average viewer, but it shouldn’t be too hard to figure things out. I’ve not read the books, but am a fan of the games. As far as I know, the series follows plot from the books.

Th fight scenes are visually impressive and brutal, and special effects are stunning. The plot is so far coherent and interesting enough to make me binge three episodes in one sitting. The visuals are believable for a fantasy series, and I really like Cavill as Geralt. The other actors have also pulled very good performances so far.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 21, 2019)

up to episode 5 and I'm liking it. especially the three converging storylines and the heavy 'destiny' theme  I havent read the books nor played the game but can generally work things out. I did get a bit confused about timeframes in the 4th episode but soon worked out that it was a non-linear flashback and as a folklore fan I especially liked the strong fairytale theme in the story too. . It also gave a satisfying "Oh I get it" explanation for the story arc.

It has more overt magic than I expected and I'm still working out what the races are (eg are the short miners dwarfs or just short people, are the people in the forest elfs?)

oh and is the bard and his songs in the books? just his songs and dialogue sound a bit modern to me, he's nice for comic relief though


----------



## Blackrat (Dec 21, 2019)

Ay, the short miners are dwarves, and the elves have pointy ears. The bard is also in the books and in the games, and is sort of a major character. Of his songs I don’t know, but he is sort of a comic relief in the games too.


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 21, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus: "The world of _The Witcher_ still only feels half-formed as it gallops onto screens, but Henry Cavill brings brawny charisma to *a series teeming with subversive fantasy elements and dark humor.* "




Just what we need: more subversive elements and dark humor. At this point, "grimdark" has become more cliche than vanilla fantasy.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 21, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> Just what we need: more subversive elements and dark humor. At this point, "grimdark" has become more cliche than vanilla fantasy.



I didnt find it particularly subversive or all that dark, grim maybe, but 'realistically' so. less so than GoT for instance


----------



## Mercurius (Dec 21, 2019)

Tonguez said:


> I didnt find it particularly subversive or all that dark, grim maybe, but 'realistically' so. less so than GoT for instance




OK, good to know. I don't totally hate grimdark stuff, I just dislike the fact that it has become a kind of new baseline, and takes up an enormous amount of real estate in the fantasy ouevre.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 22, 2019)

Oops.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 22, 2019)

Just watched the first episode.  I have no knowledge of the books or the video game.  Never saw either.  ((I always thought Geralt of Rivea was from Castlevania)).  I have to say that I don't think I'm missing anything.  Seems fairly straight forward so far.  You've got Geralt, you've got angry woman who used to be a princess and really wants to kill the wizard and angry princess that just ran away.  Nothing too complicated so far.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 22, 2019)

I’m two episodes in. Short review: if I think of The Witcher as the next Game of Thrones, it’s pretty bad, but if I think of it as the next grimdark Xena/Hercules, it’s quite good.

And Cavill’s doing a great job as Geralt.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 22, 2019)

Mallus said:


> I’m two episodes in. Short review: if I think of The Witcher as the next Game of Thrones, it’s pretty bad, but if I think of it as the next grimdark Xena/Hercules, it’s quite good.
> 
> And Cavill’s doing a great job as Geralt.



its definitely more Xena than GoT, its got a very "new adventure per week" approach, with the three leads providing the connecting arc


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Dec 22, 2019)

I don’t know how to value a review that relies entirely on comparisons in the vein of “as a new X, it’s bad”. 

Like...genuinely what am I even supposed to take from that? That tells me literally nothing.


----------



## Morrus (Dec 22, 2019)

Seen episode 1. I'm not sure about it yet. My main takeaway was: cool sword fights, silly voice. I'll give it a second episode.


----------



## Retreater (Dec 22, 2019)

Is it available in a Polish language dub? I like it as authentic as possible.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 24, 2019)

Well, to describe it:
It's a world were fairy tales cannot be written off as just "tales" - they might be (embellished) retellings of historical events. Kinda like a Hollywood take on some historical event - because Elves, Dwarves, magic, monsters, wizards and sorcerors, they all exist. but of course, historical event rarely fit neither in a 90 minute movie nor a 5 minute Bard's ballad and wouldn't always be satisfying entertainment if told accurately.

The main characters is a "Witcher", a human altered with magic to be able to combat monsters that could easily beat a normal warrior, a sorceress from humble beginnings that doesn't have come to terms with what she sacrificed to gain her power and beauty, and a royal child with some inborn magic ability that she hasn't even fully figured.

The first season shows some important scenes of their life, each character's story told at a different speed through their life, all stories moving towards the "present", and occassionally showing where their paths crossed.

It is relatively episodic compared to many streaming shows, though there are some shared threads that tie things together and become clearer the closer you get toward the end of the season.


----------



## Xenonnonex (Dec 29, 2019)

Morrus said:


> Seen episode 1. I'm not sure about it yet. My main takeaway was: cool sword fights, silly voice. I'll give it a second episode.



It certainly gets better in the subsequent episodes. I stuck with it and I am quite enjoying it so far. YMMV of course.


----------



## Hussar (Dec 31, 2019)

Watched to the end.

Liked it and want to see next season.  I didn't twig on the whole different time streams thing until about half way through watching.  Cool technique.  Stories were well done, acting is good enough, and it's got a pretty solid over arching plot.  

Yeah, I'll watch the next season.


----------



## Nikosandros (Dec 31, 2019)

I binged all ten episodes and I loved it. It was my first exposure, I hadn't read any of the books nor played any of the games.


----------



## Imaculata (Jan 1, 2020)

I binged all episodes as well and greatly enjoyed it. Henry Cavill makes a fantastic Geralt and you can tell he loves playing the part. It has a bit of a D&D feeling to it (in a good way) and not so much Game of Thrones.

It didn't have me hooked until episode 2 with the introduction of Yennefer. The quality of the show goes a bit up and down in the effects department. Most of the monsters look great, but some of the big battles really show the limitations of the budget in my opinion. Also, whenever we see the dryads it looks like they are just in a normal forest that is cursed with a persistent Photoshop lensflare. I don't like their design either. I'm also not entirely happy with the casting of Triss.

However, the rest of the cast is really good, even if they may not resemble the look of their book counter parts. The plots of the episodes string neatly together and there are some nice surprises along the way (and some time jumps). I also enjoy the lore and mythology.

I do think they mention a lot of things that aren't really explained in the show, such as the Conjunction of the Spheres. But perhaps later seasons will delve into that. I haven't read any of the books or played the games and yet I could follow most of it just fine. The only thing that can get a little confusing is all the various countries that are mentioned. Without a map, as a casual viewer you just have no idea where everything is in relation to each other.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 8, 2020)

Never heard of the game or the books- But saw the hoopla about it recently-I forced myself through the 1st episode.  It's certainly no Stranger Things or Lost in Space. 

I really don't understand why so much fantasy is done so poorly on-screen.  The acting was -eh. The setting seemed anachronistic. The swordfights were way too Hollywood, and  at any minute I was expecting for the main character guy to


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 8, 2020)

JeffB said:


> *Never heard of the game or the books*- But saw the hoopla about it recently-I forced myself through the 1st episode.  It's certainly no Stranger Things or Lost in Space.
> 
> I really don't understand why so much fantasy is done so poorly on-screen.  The acting was -eh. The setting seemed anachronistic. The swordfights were way too Hollywood, and  at any minute I was expecting for the main character guy to
> View attachment 117284




That alone puts you at a disadvantage, not knowing about it will give you no understanding of it. That is okay. And for fantasy being poorly for tv, it is a testing ground to find their footing. It is common practice, to have improvements down the road, if said show has more seasons.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 8, 2020)

I don't think you need to know anything about the books or games to watch it. Only one person in my house had played the games......


----------



## Eric V (Jan 8, 2020)

Never read the books, nor played the games, but we loved it in my house.  Gave a look of how a "typical" DnD world with fairly common magic abounding and monsters being real might look like; felt much more D&D than GoT, but that makes sense upon reflection.  The hints within the world make me want to learn more about it.  Looking forward to season 2.


----------



## Janx (Jan 8, 2020)

Hussar said:


> Watched to the end.
> 
> Liked it and want to see next season.  I didn't twig on the whole different time streams thing until about half way through watching.  Cool technique.  Stories were well done, acting is good enough, and it's got a pretty solid over arching plot.
> 
> Yeah, I'll watch the next season.




As I understand it from an interview with Cavill, they wanted 3 main characters, but the books don't introduce the two sorcereses until later.  So they did the funky time stuff to bring their stories to inter-weave with Geralt.

My wife has read most the books and played the stuffing out of the video games. It took her a bit to realize the how the time-choppy worked (because some of that content is from the newest book).  I didn't figure it out until the big party with the Law of Surprise shotgun wedding.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 9, 2020)

Janx said:


> As I understand it from an interview with Cavill, they wanted 3 main characters, but the books don't introduce the two sorcereses until later.  So they did the funky time stuff to bring their stories to inter-weave with Geralt.
> 
> My wife has read most the books and played the stuffing out of the video games. It took her a bit to realize the how the time-choppy worked (because some of that content is from the newest book).  I didn't figure it out until the big party with the Law of Surprise shotgun wedding.




Yup, that was pretty much the same for me too.

As far as fantasy FX or whatnot, decades of Doctor Who has trained me not to see it.    They were good enough.  And, I thought the sword fighting was actually pretty darn well done.  Meh, to each his own.


----------



## Talltomwright (Jan 9, 2020)

I too know nothing about the Witcher, never played the games, never ead the books, but by the third episode I was really loving the series; the decades wide time-split felt like a feature not a bug; the moment of surprise when the time-frames were revealed were really exciting, and it created a lot of anticipation for the three protagonists eventually meeting. I also liked how each episode felt like a fairy story; things like knights cursed by witches and the law of surprise made it feel much more Brothers Grimm than George R R Martin and that felt different and exciting. Plus I found Cavill appealingly vulnerable and ended up really rooting for him by the end. TLDR: Not the best thing out there but a fun fantasy in a very different mold to Game of Thrones. And yes, heavy D&D nods (looking at you, Gold Dragon.)


----------



## Beleriphon (Jan 9, 2020)

Talltomwright said:


> I too know nothing about the Witcher, never played the games, never ead the books, but by the third episode I was really loving the series; the decades wide time-split felt like a feature not a bug; the moment of surprise when the time-frames were revealed were really exciting, and it created a lot of anticipation for the three protagonists eventually meeting. I also liked how each episode felt like a fairy story; things like knights cursed by witches and the law of surprise made it feel much more Brothers Grimm than George R R Martin and that felt different and exciting.




From the original books this is very, very intentional. Most of the original stories have a dark take on a classic element from fair tales and folk stories.

For anybody that needs a bit of background on terms. Conjunction of the Spheres is the event that dropped monsters, humans, and some other stuff, into the setting some 1500 years prior to the events depicted. Very important to this is that humans didn't exist in the world before the Conjunction.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 10, 2020)

The first season of The Witcher was always gong to be be the most challenging. To avoid the jarring change in story between the 2nd and 3rd books they've intermingles elements and split timelines. The strength of it is when the separate threads come together. It's a big moment when Geralt and Yennifer... ahem ... collide. And again when the last timelines come together.

While i thought the sword-fight of the first episode was not that great (but faced paced enough to be exciting) for me the fight with Geralt facing Knights in Cintra was far better. You could tell his strength and speed were enhanced as every blow he landed was precise enough to hit joints in armor with crushing force.

I'm really looking forward to season 2.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 10, 2020)

Janx said:


> As I understand it from an interview with Cavill, they wanted 3 main characters, but the books don't introduce the two sorcereses until later.  So they did the funky time stuff to bring their stories to inter-weave with Geralt.
> 
> My wife has read most the books and played the stuffing out of the video games. It took her a bit to realize the how the time-choppy worked (because some of that content is from the newest book).  I didn't figure it out until the big party with the Law of Surprise shotgun wedding.




Didn't know that. I thought jumping around in the timeline was an homage to the video games, which frequently has you jump into a scene from the past. This also plays into him recovering from amnesia with him (and you the player) learn more about past events to better understand the present plot.


----------



## MNblockhead (Jan 10, 2020)

Blackrat said:


> Ay, the short miners are dwarves, and the elves have pointy ears. The bard is also in the books and in the games, and is sort of a major character. Of his songs I don’t know, but he is sort of a comic relief in the games too.




Wasn't sure at first whether I liked Dandelion/Jaskier   (the bard) in the show. He didn't have the looks that made him believable as a Casanova type.  In the video games, I didn't like the character at first, but he grew on me. Same with the series. By the end of the series, I came to like the character as acted by Joey Bately.


----------



## Blue (Jan 12, 2020)

Haven't played the games or read the books.  Watched it with my wife who didn't even know it was a series of games.  We quite enjoyed it.  I give props to Henry Cavill for being able to well emote someone who supposedly has little emotions - that's got to be a tricky line to act.  But his hmms were filled with meaning.

After finishing it, my wife has already ordered the books under the assumption I'll read them after she has. She's right.

I like it wasn't dumbed down, and expected viewers to follow around in different times without being held by the hand.  Fight scenes were dynamic (though some variation), and gory enough to be uncomfortable without going over the top.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 12, 2020)

I like it. I don’t like that it had to go full grimdark tragedy in episode 1, and introduced and killed my favorite character in episode one (Renfri), but I’m enjoying it in spite of that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 12, 2020)

JeffB said:


> Never heard of the game or the books- But saw the hoopla about it recently-I forced myself through the 1st episode.  It's certainly no Stranger Things or Lost in Space.
> 
> I really don't understand why so much fantasy is done so poorly on-screen.  The acting was -eh. The setting seemed anachronistic.



The setting is definitely not "chronistic". The world is the result of a clash of worlds (aka the _Conjunction of Spheres_). We know very little about it (and I remember probably even less from the novels). But it's not humanity's past. It's humans, displaced to a new world that contained elves, and together with the humans, hordes of monsters also invaded. One can imagine that this was quite world-shattering for everyone, and anything we could predict from "our" medieval times could be off, simply because some knowledge, some culture was lost, while others was retained, and other aspects might actually come not from the humans, but other races. The Elves taught humans magic, but the humans breed like rabbits humans, and the Elves didn't know how to handle the kind of aggressive expansion humanity engaged in, fighting back far too late. 

I'd say that's fantasy just done right - clearly fantastic, not an attempt to be historical (though some argue that elements of the history and story of the novels might mirror the history of Poland, minus the magic.)


----------



## 5atbu (Jan 12, 2020)

Umbran said:


> Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus: "The world of _The Witcher_ still only feels half-formed as it gallops onto screens, but Henry Cavill brings brawny charisma to a series teeming with subversive fantasy elements and dark humor. "



That is no bad way to introduce a world: bit by bit.
The books are more grim than the TV so far. They are very based in the horror of the wars in Poland in WW2; and all the better for it.
I think the series has made a great start.
Don't worry too much about the setting, it'll grow out of the stories.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 13, 2020)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The setting is definitely not "chronistic". The world is the result of a clash of worlds (aka the _Conjunction of Spheres_). We know very little about it (and I remember probably even less from the novels). But it's not humanity's past. It's humans, displaced to a new world that contained elves, and together with the humans, hordes of monsters also invaded. One can imagine that this was quite world-shattering for everyone, and anything we could predict from "our" medieval times could be off, simply because some knowledge, some culture was lost, while others was retained, and other aspects might actually come not from the humans, but other races. The Elves taught humans magic, but the humans breed like rabbits humans, and the Elves didn't know how to handle the kind of aggressive expansion humanity engaged in, fighting back far too late.
> 
> I'd say that's fantasy just done right - clearly fantastic, not an attempt to be historical (though some argue that elements of the history and story of the novels might mirror the history of Poland, minus the magic.)



This is what makes it feel more like a D&D setting to me than a lot of other Fantasy Fictions settings. It's a world filled with competing organizations of high magic users, competing human kingdoms, Old High elven lore, and current elf freedom fighters. religious zealotry, and most importantly monsters, monsters, and more monsters. With a secretive order of rangers dedicated to protecting civilization from these monsters.

I could run a 5e game in Witcherland with far fewer tweaks than say Middle-Earth or Westeros.

And now I want to.


----------



## Beleriphon (Jan 13, 2020)

BookBarbarian said:


> I could run a 5e game in Witcherland with far fewer tweaks than say Middle-Earth or Westeros.
> 
> And now I want to.




Ask and ye shall receive.



			https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1477/36/1477360852873.pdf


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 13, 2020)

Beleriphon said:


> Ask and ye shall receive.
> 
> 
> 
> https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1477/36/1477360852873.pdf



Wow! I have the basic version of the Witcher TTRPG for a while now, but wasn't a fan of how fiddly it is. This looks sweet!


----------



## Zaukrie (Jan 13, 2020)

Beleriphon said:


> Ask and ye shall receive.
> 
> 
> 
> https://img.4plebs.org/boards/tg/image/1477/36/1477360852873.pdf




If I haven't read the books or played the games, how much will this spoil future seasons of the tv show, do you think?


----------



## Beleriphon (Jan 13, 2020)

Zaukrie said:


> If I haven't read the books or played the games, how much will this spoil future seasons of the tv show, do you think?




Not at all, it basically explains very, very briefly the state of the world at around the time frame of _The Witcher 3_ without spoiling the game plot. It actually does a good job of barely even referencing the books and instead says: here's how D&D rules/classes/etc. would work in The Witcher stories with a enough background to explain. The biggest reveal is _The Witcher _3 involves a second Conjunction which Geralt stops (you discover this relatively late in the game, but its nothing unexpected really) and it doesn't explain how or why Geralt does this.

Edit: The Witcher class (yes it has a new class) has some discussion about the history of witchers and some of the plot points from the novels and first game. Nothing about it should be a big spoiler, the most significant one is that the Cat School of witchers betray the Wolf School and Geralt along with his sorceress friends wreck holy havoc on the Cats.

Oh, a bit of the end of The Witcher 2 I suppose. Again, nothing specific at all. I'm not sure the Netflix series will ever deal with game elements given how _The Witcher_ (the first game) and why its even a game.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 14, 2020)

BookBarbarian said:


> Wow! I have the basic version of the Witcher TTRPG for a while now, but wasn't a fan of how fiddly it is. This looks sweet!



Yeah it looks good. I wouldn’t use most of the rules variants they throw in, like fumbles and called shots, but the meat of it looks good.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah it looks good. I wouldn’t use most of the rules variants they throw in, like fumbles and called shots, but the meat of it looks good.



I think the Witcher class itself is a bit complicated for my tastes too, but it's obvious that a lot of work and thought went into this, which means less work and thought for me!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 14, 2020)

BookBarbarian said:


> I think the Witcher class itself is a bit complicated for my tastes too, but it's obvious that a lot of work and thought went into this, which means less work and thought for me!



Yeah agreed. I'd probably just build a variant ranger with something like a ki system in place of spells, and 5 simple but effective Signs he can use with them, and use the UA variants of favored enemy and natural explorer.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 14, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Yeah agreed. I'd probably just build a variant ranger with something like a ki system in place of spells, and 5 simple but effective Signs he can use with them, and use the UA variants of favored enemy and natural explorer.



UA Variants came to my mind too and I'm lazy enough that Signs could just be appropriate spell lists. I like the idea of the Witcher potions, but I may try for a simpler drawback system. Like 1 level of exhaustion when a potion's effects wear off. That should pair well with the Tireless UA option.

I do like a lot of the Witcher School options more than some of the official Ranger subclasses. I'll give those some thought.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jan 15, 2020)

BookBarbarian said:


> UA Variants came to my mind too and I'm lazy enough that Signs could just be appropriate spell lists. I like the idea of the Witcher potions, but I may try for a simpler drawback system. Like 1 level of exhaustion when a potions effects where off. That should pair well with the Tireless UA option.
> 
> I do like a lot of the Witcher School options more than some of the official Ranger subclasses. I'll give those some thought.



Great points. I'll have to take another look at those and see what I come up with.


----------



## Scott DeWar (Jan 18, 2020)

I have seen Stranger things [all], The Witcher, and so many others. I am just now getting around to The Magicians.

I want more Witcher and Stranger Things gosh darn it !!!


----------



## Vael (Jan 23, 2020)

Finished it tonight. The end battle was really cool, I enjoyed most of the characters. I didn't mind the time shifts, but I think they could've been more explicit about it. Yes, there were some references early, but I missed them. I have had "Toss a Coin to Your Witcher" stuck in my head, but it was a bit of a welcome respite from the other songs that have been in there. Actually, my main complaints were not enough Jaskier and that I just didn't care much for Ciri.


----------



## wicked cool (Jan 23, 2020)

Netflix is now working on an anime story and it appears its content unrelated to books/games


----------



## theT0rmented (Jan 23, 2020)

Enjoying the show so far, two episodes left for me.

Netflix has released an interactive timeline / map (spoilers if you haven't finished watching):








						Netflix | The Witcher | Welcome to the Continent
					

Welcome back. New faces, locations and lore awaits. Uncover hidden mysteries and explore the expanding Continent.




					www.witchernetflix.com


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 23, 2020)

theT0rmented said:


> Netflix has released an interactive timeline / map (spoilers if you haven't finished watching):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm on episode 5, still deciding whether or not I like it.  Trying to follow the timeline is probably the worst part of the show.  Nothing seems to be told in any particular order, and it's really hard to figure out passage of time or when events occur.  I think I'm actually more confused after looking at that web page.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 23, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> I'm on episode 5, still deciding whether or not I like it.  Trying to follow the timeline is probably the worst part of the show.  Nothing seems to be told in any particular order, and it's really hard to figure out passage of time or when events occur.  I think I'm actually more confused after looking at that web page.



I've got two to go. I find I have to kinda make myself watch them.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Jan 23, 2020)

The last 2 episodes are where things really pull together.


----------



## Gradine (Jan 23, 2020)

BookBarbarian said:


> The last 2 episodes are where things really pull together.




Having just finished them myself, I agree. Ironically, they are also two of the more Yennefer-centric episodes of the show. Also helps that we get to see a more proactive Ciri as well.

I went into the series with low expectations, after the first episode or two started to realize that what we were getting was, intentionally it seemed, more in the vein of early 90's fantasy adventures like Xena/Hercules than prestige fantasy a la GoT, and from that perspective the show ended up meeting and eventually exceeding my expectations.


----------



## JeffB (Jan 23, 2020)

I ended up watching the whole thing in order to give it a chance- and started to enjoy it after the second or third episode. I wish there was more monsters- for a monster hunter, he doesn't do a whole lot of monster hunting. But I thought the Ghouls (or whatever) were fantastic.

Yeah this is Xena/Hercules with sex *

* I know the youngsters like to see that, but at my age and three wives in, I've had enough great sex- I have NOT had enough great Fantasy TV. Priorities people, priorities.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jan 24, 2020)

Deset Gled said:


> I'm on episode 5, still deciding whether or not I like it.  Trying to follow the timeline is probably the worst part of the show.  Nothing seems to be told in any particular order, and it's really hard to figure out passage of time or when events occur.  I think I'm actually more confused after looking at that web page.



Yeah, that timeline is... not a good guide to what's happening in the episodes.

The thing in with the timelines in the episodes that may help is that each character's timeline is linear -- every time you see them it's later in their timeline.  No hopping around to different times for each character.  The timelines do, however, progress at different rates.


----------



## Tun Kai Poh (Jan 29, 2020)

Yeah, it's like Hercules/Xena with more gore, nudity and sex, and three parallel timelines a la Dunkirk. Cheesy fun, I like it.


----------



## Richards (Sep 17, 2020)

I know I'm coming late to this party, but I don't subscribe to Netflix (a personal choice - don't try to convince me to join as I don't even fork over any cash for cable TV, making do with a digital antenna) and thus never had an opportunity to give this a shot.  However, my granddaughter does get Netflix and she's here for a week and a half visit and wanted to watch this series with us (she saw part of episode 1 and thought it was something we'd all enjoy, as it looked sufficiently "D&Dish"), so we gave it a shot, watching all eight episodes over the course of the last two days.

Bottom line: it was enjoyable.  None of us have ever read any of the books or played (or even heard of) the games, so we went into the show "cold" but it was easy enough to follow.  (Although we did pause between episodes to discuss among ourselves what was going on with the various plot-lines; it was my son who first clued us in to the different timelines.)  Henry Cavill did a great job, I thought, when so many of his lines were merely grunts of irritation.  And I enjoyed Yennifer, although I have to admit after she got the "upgrade" I immediately missed "Piglet" - the beautiful wizard pretty much blended in with all of the other beautiful wizards but the hunchbacked version really stood out.

And I thought this looked very much like a homebrewed D&D campaign world, complete with elves, dwarves, color-coded dragons, doppelgangers (well, one in any case), and a bunch of new monsters the DM wanted to try out.

Johnathan


----------



## Imaculata (Sep 17, 2020)

The first season is a bit of a mixed bag, but the main cast is always enjoyable, especially Cavill (though I wish they gave him a better wig). It feels very D&D'ish, like watching someone's homebrew campaign. But in a good way.

I'm very curious to see if season 2 takes a leap up in quality, as many shows often do.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 17, 2020)

Think il have to do a rewatch soon. Got 5 seasons worth of other shows to binge so that will keep us busy for a few weeks.

  It does feel a bit D&Dish. Not as good as the best of GoT better than the final seasons. 

  Season 2 the great unknown.


----------



## CapnZapp (Sep 17, 2020)

I'd rewatch the third about the Witcher in an instant if the whole show were that good, but the mere thought of having to slog through the paper-thin excuse for having the princess already in season 1 turns me off the idea.

The sorceress story was a bit confused and illogical (it makes me think of fantasy films of old which also had poor scripts where stuff just happens) but it's passable.

Without the Ciri stuff I could stretch my grade to four out of five stars. After all, fantasy with nudity and gore is my favorite genre! That would likely have meant fewer time jumps which also helps.

With it, a very clunky two stars. If it weren't for the genre, I would have stopped watching.

Let's hope Netflix isn't pulling an Altered Carbon on us for Witcher season 2. By that I mean taking a luxurious show with a great script and uncensored, controversial content... and then absolutely destroying everything that made the first season good, slashing its budget, replacing the author's story with generic drek, and pruding up its characters.

Seldom have I witnessed a greater drop in watchability than with AC Season 2... I absolutely _loved_ season 1, yet I lasted only two episodes of season 2.

For me to keep watching The Witcher, that show needs to step up its qualities, rather than down.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2020)

CapnZapp said:


> I'd rewatch the third about the Witcher in an instant if the whole show were that good, but the mere thought of having to slog through the paper-thin excuse for having the princess already in season 1 turns me off the idea.
> 
> The sorceress story was a bit confused and illogical (it makes me think of fantasy films of old which also had poor scripts where stuff just happens) but it's passable.
> 
> ...



Sounds like the show probably will lose you at some point. 

Tbh, if you can only rank the entirety of season 1 at a 2/5, the show just isn’t for you, IMO.


----------



## CapnZapp (Sep 23, 2020)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sounds like the show probably will lose you at some point.
> 
> Tbh, if you can only rank the entirety of season 1 at a 2/5, the show just isn’t for you, IMO.



Did you know "it's not for you" is sometimes used as code for "we don't want to admit the flaws of the show or discuss how it can be improved"? 

I love fantasy on TV. I think the premise had great potential, and maybe still does.

I just wish they realized Ciri is mostly just padding in season 1, and kept from casting her until they gave the character more to do. Travelling from A to B is possibly the most cliché and overused and boring plot line of all fantasy.

More in general, the Witcher is trash television. Of the best kind, mind you!

I maintain that episode 3 is the show Netflix should have aimed for. A well-told self-contained monster story for Geralt, body horror and power moves for Yennefer, and very little Ciri. It's guilty pleasure television, and it's great! The show would have been better off imho if didn't take itself so damn seriously and instead went all in on blood, tits and glory, leaving the pompous storylines for another, more high-brow, show.

But thanks for the heads up. You may well be right. I mean, it's not as if great shows taking a nose dive for their second season is unheard of...


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2020)

CapnZapp said:


> Did you know "it's not for you" is sometimes used as code for "we don't want to admit the flaws of the show or discuss how it can be improved"?




*Mod Note:*

The insinuation that while _you_ are here out of a simple desire to critique, folks who don't agree with you aren't... is very conveniently dismissive and is not acceptable.  By making it personal, you've earned yourself a ticket out of the thread.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2020)

CapnZapp said:


> Did you know "it's not for you" is sometimes used as code for "we don't want to admit the flaws of the show or discuss how it can be improved"?
> 
> I love fantasy on TV. I think the premise had great potential, and maybe still does.
> 
> ...



In this case, it isn’t code for anything. 

You’re mistaking your preferences for an indication of quality.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2020)

It would be better form to leave folks who can no longer respond out of the conversation.


----------



## Istbor (Sep 23, 2020)

Being supremely lazy, when is this second season set to hit?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2020)

Istbor said:


> Being supremely lazy, when is this second season set to hit?




A quick search says it does not yet have an official release date.


----------



## Janx (Sep 23, 2020)

Istbor said:


> Being supremely lazy, when is this second season set to hit?



2022 purportedly.  Wife was bummed.  Not exact info, but when she heard the news, it was much longer than a year.


----------



## Istbor (Sep 23, 2020)

Janx said:


> 2022 purportedly.  Wife was bummed.  Not exact info, but when she heard the news, it was much longer than a year.




Makes sense. I know I had heard it would take some time, and that was pre-pandemic. That is a bit of a bummer.


----------

