The Witcher - Netflix **Spoilers**

Jerichoholic

I don't recall the Yenniffer origin story from the games, didn't get too far in the first game though. Did I miss it?

Jerichoholic

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I don't recall the Yenniffer origin story from the games, didn't get too far in the first game though. Did I miss it?

It wasn't in the 2nd or 3rd games

nix

The witcher games are a continuation of the books, the first witcher game takes place like 5-10 years after the final book. So any stories from the books are just referenced in passing in the games, like Geralt being the butcher of blaviken

So the netflix show takes from the books and the games extend the stories/world from the books, the games are fanfare pretty much :pac:

Mickeroo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It wasn't in the 2nd or 3rd games

It's not really in the books either, it's mentioned she was a hunchback at one point but no great detail beyond that I don't think. They needed to flesh her out a bit I guess.

Jerichoholic

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's not really in the books either, it's mentioned she was a hunchback at one point but no great detail beyond that I don't think. They needed to flesh her out a bit I guess.

It was well done I thought. Some good stuff in this in all fairness. Only 4 eps left for me now.

nix

nix wrote: »

The witcher games are a continuation of the books, the first witcher game takes place like 5-10 years after the final book. So any stories from the books are just referenced in passing in the games, like Geralt being the butcher of blaviken

So the netflix show takes from the books and the games extend the stories/world from the books, the games are fanfare pretty much :pac:

Is Kaer Morhan rebuilt or something by the time of The Witcher 3? It's mentioned in this that it was destroyed.

Potential-Monke

Deleted User wrote: »

Is Kaer Morhan rebuilt or something by the time of The Witcher 3? It's mentioned in this that it was destroyed.

I wouldn't say rebuilt, more living in the current state of it, but you do work towards building some of it back up iirc. It's not destroyed per se, but it's not safely protected anymore either. Well, in the game anyway.

I thoroughly enjoyed this, but due to an intoxicant of choice when I binged it, I may need a second viewing to get everything it had to offer.

But, having only played the games, I have a few small issues, which some have echoed above. The timeline is all over the place, and only for having played the games, I was able to recognise scenes which definitely took place well before Ciri. But for people who have no previous Witcher knowledge, or even people who have some, it could be very hard to follow. I agree more should have been put into making it obvious that the timelines were different for each character.

And as mentioned above, a few quick minutes in the first episode to show the lay of the land, the different factions and who was the boss of where, it may have run a bit more smoothly. An intro like GoT would serve really well here.

I couldn't take to Triss, albeit the few scenes she's in. I'm a game Triss fan, so it was just too much of a change to accept. #justiceforredheads :pac:

I knew the background for Yenn, but I watched it with 2 other lads who have only played the games (well, one of them has only played 3). So I saw that coming, but it blew the 2 boys away with the reveal. Really well done imo.

Cavill is a great Geralt. I was worried he'd show too much emotion, but his wooden acting works here. He's not Witcher games Geralt, but he's close enough!

Again, as mentioned above, the decoctions could have been explained better, but they are referenced, but even a quick shot of the label with the name on it would have been better than little bottles of liquid. I could guess what he took, but again that's down to the hours upon hours put into the games (and them being a key component of the battles).

Overall, it felt a bit disjointed, and a bit rushed at times, but I did enjoy it. I will know with the second viewing if it was just the initial awesomeness of more Witcher making it appear better, or if it actually it good.

I recommend it, but don't go expecting Game of Thrones: Monsters. It's not, and as other have said, it's more like LotR, lots of magic, lots of monsters, and lots of fantasy. But darker.

5uspect

I guess the best way to describe the Witcher to people unfamiliar with the books or games is that the stories tend to subvert classic fairytales with more grounded realism, at least in regard to people’s actions. One short story plays on a much darker and grim Snow White for example (episode 1) while the Witcher 3 game does a horrific spin on Hansel and Gretel.

Dave_The_Sheep

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Overall, it felt a bit disjointed, and a bit rushed at times,

Before I go further, I quite enjoyed the series. I've read the books, and played all the games, so I'm coming at this from a fan point of view.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first 5/6 episodes, though 6 was ropey as ****.

However, episodes 7/8 which were the big "plot going forward" episodes were exactly as you say disjointed and rushed. Things didn't really make sense, things that were huge in the book series (such as Geralt meeting Ciri at the farm) didn't fully make sense. In the books, Ciri and Geralt had met once before hence they knew each other - they lost a chance to do this before what with Geralt being present for the sack of Cintra - it didn't really make sense. It was hamfisted and Ciri's prophecy in the farm field was similarly underwhelming. It's supposed to be a big reveal/cliffhanger but realistically it came across as not a whole lot.

I felt the Battle of Sodden was a little lacklustre (admittedly we're spoiled by GoT when it comes to battles, so maybe that's it). I'm also disappointed with the role of Triss in that battle (and the series). Her actress didn't give us a whole lot, she's not bad but she's not good either. The least they could do is give Triss her role in Sodden without giving the saving-the-world moment to Yenn. Have to say though I do like the portrayal of Yennefer, I was wary at first but Chalotra is doing a very good job so far.

I feel the series could have worked better with a few more episodes of Geralt's adventures and then trying to push forward to the next series.

I didn't stop reading that soon enough. I guess this thread is spoiler town if you haven't finished the whole series?

Dave_The_Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't stop reading that soon enough. I guess this thread is spoiler town if you haven't finished the whole series?

Apologies. I'll spoiler it now.

I do think it should be fair game though. It's not a weekly episodic release, it's all available at once.

J. Marston

On the final episode. Loving it so far.

Geralt and Yenn are brilliant. Ciri is alright although her dodgy eyes put me off her scenes a little. Jaskier is fantastic.

Also, I've been singing this for days...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHgowJ7d33k

Jerichoholic

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Apologies. I'll spoiler it now.

I do think it should be fair game though. It's not a weekly episodic release, it's all available at once.

Nah, you can't expect everyone to watch all 8 hours before making a comment or two.

Dave_The_Sheep

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Nah, you can't expect everyone to watch all 8 hours before making a comment or two.

Fair to a degree, I suppose, though it's been a fair few days. I did so myself. Mind you I did in the knowledge I couldn't really have it spoiled given I already know the storyline.

I don't agree really, but I'll be careful of it in future and won't mention it again.

Dave_The_Sheep

J. Marston wrote: »

Also, I've been singing this for days...

When you actually listen to the lyrics and think about the episode it's such a silly song - as such it's absolutely perfect for Jaskier/Dandelion trying to scrounge coin as always. Catchy as ****, even if it goes on a chorus too long... or a verse too fewer.

Jerichoholic

Well, it's only been out 4 days.

fritzelly

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't stop reading that soon enough. I guess this thread is spoiler town if you haven't finished the whole series?

Finds online thoughts about the series then complains about people sharing their thoughts, if you don't want spoilers don't google the show after it's been released, geez

nix

fritzelly wrote: »

Finds online thoughts about the series then complains about people sharing their thoughts, if you don't want spoilers don't google the show after it's been released, geez

You can discuss a TV show without going into detail, the detail is why spoiler tags exist :rolleyes:

Unless the thread is getting a lot of traffic, its common boards etiquette to use spoiler tags until stated otherwise in the thread title, 10,000 posts between yiz I'm surprised you don't know that


Anyway, one more episode to go, and for those that were lost in the first episode, there is more backstory unearthed as the show progresses, so if you're enjoying it otherwise, i would strongly recommend sticking with it, its a really good show to be fair

Paddy Cow

billyhead wrote: »

Should you have read the books of played the games to watch this series to understand it?

I just finished watching the series and never played the games or read the books. I learned about the show because of the hype on 9gag and to be honest while I think the show appeals to fans of The Witcher series, it hasn't gripped me. I found it confusing and am not pushed about the next series.

nix wrote: »

Game of thrones was more confusing starting off to be honest, give it more time, info will start sticking and other characters will return.

The opposite was true for me. I watched the first series of GOT, was hooked and couldn't wait for the next series so went out and bought all the books. I don't feel the same about this show. I can't fault the production, it's fantastic but I'm just not invested in the show. I don't think it will attract attention outside the fan base the way GOT did because it's too hard to follow.

The last episode was like the battle with the NK where you expected Jon Snow to have an epic battle with the NK but instead he hid behind a rock while a dragon tried to fry him. In this show the main guy spent the episode being injured on the back of a straw cart. It was a huge anti-climax after investing in so many episodes where he was pivotal to the outcome. I don't know if that's how it played out in the books/game but as someone new to the show, it was a let down.

I'm sure I'll get a lot of people telling me that I just don't understand/get it, and that's a fair criticism because it's true. After all the hype and watching all the episodes I just feel meh about the whole thing. I really wanted to enjoy this but I'll probably forget about it and am not really bothered about the next season.

Dave_The_Sheep

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Apologies. I'll spoiler it now.

I do think it should be fair game though. It's not a weekly episodic release, it's all available at once.

You even mentioned that you watched all episodes first. My own dumb fault.

Dave_The_Sheep

Nah. In retrospect, my bad.

Potential-Monke

Paddy Cow wrote: »

I'm sure I'll get a lot of people telling me that I just don't understand/get it, and that's a fair criticism because it's true. After all the hype and watching all the episodes I just feel meh about the whole thing. I really wanted to enjoy this but I'll probably forget about it and am not really bothered about the next season.

I don't think anyone will say that, because as you can see, even book/game fans will agree it would be hard for someone new to The Witcher to grasp it all, because it doesn't give you all of it to begin with (no one explained the different decoctions and the effects they have, so to many it'll just look like he drinks this magic elixir with no difference between them).

I think Netflix should quickly put together a animated visual novel describing some of the smaller bits, like the decoctions, oils, spells, etc, what they are, where they come from, how they're used, etc. There's so much lore there, that it would help garner more fans imo. Won't happen though.

Then again, some legends have explained some of them (from TW3) already, ie: the Signs:

pixelburp

Let me add some vaguely official thoughts on the issue of spoilers: while there's no hard time limit of when "fair game" kicks in, as the show is only 4 days out I'd ask people to consider those who watch at different paces to those who would consume the lot on a binge.

This is a discussion thread to talk shop on the show as a whole, but it's not a prerequisite to have watched the whole lot before contributing. Would be a pretty quiet thread were that the case.

So please use discretion and spoiler tag anything explicitly plotty, twisty or even mentions of later events from the books. Simple consideration of others...

ERG89

I've watched the first episode twice. I just find it so dull that I don't really want to move on. Some of the special effects, etc looked nice in one moment & iffy in other places. The acting is a bit dodgy in some areas too. Cavill seems fine but it sounds like he's only doing a Doug Cockle impression rather than a voice that is uniquely him. It would be like Robert Pattinson only doing a Kevin Conroy impersonation in the new Batman film, I like his taste but it feels distracting.

tusk

Binged Friday and Saturday. It's fantastic. I was very strongly surprised.

Went straight back to play the game.. Will give it another couple of weeks and rewatch the series

tusk

ERG89 wrote: »

I've watched the first episode twice. I just find it so dull that I don't really want to move on. Some of the special effects, etc looked nice in one moment & iffy in other places. The acting is a bit dodgy in some areas too. Cavill seems fine but it sounds like he's only doing a Doug Cockle impression rather than a voice that is uniquely him. It would be like Robert Pattinson only doing a Kevin Conroy impersonation in the new Batman film, I like his taste but it feels distracting.

The first episode is by far the weakest and not a representation of the rest. Do yourself a favor and push through it. You'll be pleasantly surprised

Sonics2k

ERG89 wrote: »

I've watched the first episode twice. I just find it so dull that I don't really want to move on. Some of the special effects, etc looked nice in one moment & iffy in other places. The acting is a bit dodgy in some areas too. Cavill seems fine but it sounds like he's only doing a Doug Cockle impression rather than a voice that is uniquely him. It would be like Robert Pattinson only doing a Kevin Conroy impersonation in the new Batman film, I like his taste but it feels distracting.

I actually had a conversation with some friends about this last night. I think Cavill basically had to stick with a voice similar to Cockle's one simply because it's a voice so many fans know, and is how it's described in the books.

It would have been very jarring if he'd used his own voice or something else.

Midnight_EG

Anyone else think Ciri looks like Judy Dench

pixelburp

Never read the books, and only ever played a little of the very first Witcher game, so not really an expert on the series beyond whatever is absorbed by cultural osmosis.

The first episode was definitely a table setter, but in the manner of these bingable series where it drops you into the world relatively cold; names, places and concepts are somewhat thrown at the wall and felt a tiny bit confused by some exposition. I'm presuming later episodes will add more context as it ticks on, that bingeing doesn't let confusion last too long.

duridian

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm presuming later episodes will add more context as it ticks on, that bingeing doesn't let confusion last too long.

Yes, they will.

I don't think I am spoiling anything by explaining the following detail/clarification which may help to settle you in and make sense of it a bit better from the get go:

The three major characters of the story Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri, Their storylines are not introduced, nor do they run in a parallel timeline for the most part. There is a lot of back and forth in this way throughout the season. Some events are decades apart despite appearing one after the other on the show.

So when you see Geralt doing something, and the story then switches to Yennefer or Ciri, don't assume that these depicted events are necessarily happening at roughly the same time.

I feel that understanding this from the beginning should help to reduce the confusion of which many have complained.