Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Shows' started by DavidMiller, May 17, 2017.
My wife and I really enjoyed it. Sure, it's confusing, at first. However, you should be able to understand what's going by the end. At first, I was thinking it was dealing with alternate timelines or such. Anyways, we found it very enjoyable. So much so, I ended up buying the TRPG (tabletop roleplaying game) and we both started playing our Witcher games on PC. hehe. Really hope this gets a release to Blu-ray or 4K! Would love to add this to our library of movies.
I am a fan of the game series and was really looking forward to this. However, I didn't make it past episode 2. I found the acting to be bland (at best), the editing and pacing all over the place and the characters unlikeable. Re-watch pretty much ANY episode of Game of Thrones first few seasons after watching this show and see the difference good writing and direction can make.
Was this show hurt or helped by its non linear story telling? I did finish it and I felt it hurt it. Lately series think if they tell a story out of linear order it makes it feel deeper than what it actually is and I would say that was true of witcher
I enjoyed it a lot. We watched it over 2 or 3 nights, then put it on again a week later as background.
I don't have a problem with the multiple timelines. I think they didn't want to get too built up in exposition so they get you rolling, then they go back to tell you relevant backstory for each episode. It does get a bit chaotic when you have 3 stories going on, and they aren't taking place simultaneously.
according to here, from the books
Year 1173: Yennefer born
Year 1252: Garalt of Riva @ Cintra, invokes Law of Surprise, Cirris parents married
Year 1263: Slaughter of Cintra (1st episode).
Their goal in season 1 was to setup season 2.
So they told 3 stories (Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri) and have them (more or less) resolve and get up to the same point in time.
Like Philip Verdieck posted, my wife and I loved it. Yes, it was hard to understand what was going on at first. But, eventually, we did start to understand what was going on. This was also the very first season, those always seem to take more time to get going. As you have to set the stage, make sure your viewers understand the lore and such. Fully expect season 2 to be better than this one. It's also one of the reasons why I hate TV in this age. If people don't like it by season 1 or 2, it's gutted. We would never have the love of MASH, I Love Lucy, and other classics, if they followed these guidelines. TV shows are meant to be investments of your time and to grow to love and hate certain characters. If an actor/actress has you hating that character, that means they are probably doing a damn good job playing that character (providing it's not an issue as like they have the same face for scared, shocked, happy and sad...hehe).
Anyways, I'm rambling. As for people saying they are avid fans of the books and video games, but not like the series, We don't get that. The guy studied this character a lot. We felt like he sounded, walked, and fought the part. My wife has read one or two of the books, I have not, so I can't say for sure there. But we both have played the games extensively. From what we have read, the actor read all the books, played the games and really studied the source material. We felt like he did an amazing job all around.
If you didn't like it, very sorry. We loved it, and can't wait to add this to our home library. We also hope that the series continues on for as long as it can. Finally, feel as if fantasy/sci-fi shows are happening enough to fill a void that seemed to be dismissed growing up. I just hope that this trend continues and to get better.
Its quite a bit more than that with Cavill. He's a Witcher fanboy. He had already played the games and read the books. When he heard Netflix optioned the property, he had his agent pestering them weekly. Finally they said "We are not near looking for people yet". He was on a quest to get this role.
Cavill also did everything, no stuntman. No stand-ins. When they were shooting, he would wear his costume and/or armor during off hours, to get more acclimated to it, etc.
Youtube The Witcher and find the interview with Rich Eisen. Its quite entertaining.
There is another link that comes up, that also covers many details (some of which I have mentioned already), but its got some spoilers in it but they tell you to skip forward 30 seconds.
This reads like the typical GoT fanboy response. Its not GoT so it gets belittled.
OK. I'm in the midst of a first watch. With zero familiarity with the source material books, or the games.
I just want to know one thing:
Are the books and games so chronologically F-d up?
Why present it like this? It's confusing and frustrating. And certainly not inviting to new audience members.
I had to find an on-line explanation for ANY of this to make sense.
In other words, why not tell an intelligible story?
The multiple timelines made it very difficult to follow for the first few episodes. Especially because it's not at all clear that it is multiple timelines at first. A subtitle here or there for each setting might have helped.
Yeah I wasn’t a fan of the convoluted storyline especially in yennifers story I didn’t buy her character growth I will pass on a season 2. I liked the actors but not the presentation
I was not aware of any of that. My wife is the one that reads about the shows we watch and absorbs everything about said show. To me, I watch them to be entertained, after that, it has served its purpose.
Because its a fine line between cleverness and stupidity
ars article about The Witcher Timelines
Thanks for the link!
I was completely unfamiliar with this when I watched, and like most the differing timelines initially threw me off. Once that became clear (e.g. when I realised Yennifer was attending a banquet where the king in Geralt's story was still only a child, and also because along the way I'd read somewhere S1 was presented like Dunkirk), it all fell into place.
The critique I would have is that, like Dunkirk, they should have made it clear that 3 differing timelines were in play. It wasn't necessary to "hide" that fact, or to force the audience to figure that out, and how the 3 ultimately met in "present day" was quite satisfying, story-wise. (Cf. Westworld, where masking the differing storylines made the whole puzzle more interesting. Or confusing and frustrating, YMMV.)
Otherwise, I would agree that it was correct to present the story that way. Otherwise, we'd have gotten maybe 3 eps of just Yennifer, before the title character even showed up, and we wouldn't be invested at all in the plight of Princess Ciri either, which presumably is the main storyline of the series (for now), as she would have shown up in say the penultimate episode, so no time to develop any empathy for her.
I binged this recently and rather enjoyed it. I am not usually a fan of non linear narrative, but this one worked for me. I was probably helped somewhat by having played Witcher 2 & 3. I imagined Geralt as older than Cavill, but I thought he did a really good job of capturing the character. I also liked Yennifer and Ciri too, not so sure on Triss so far. Looking forward to season 2 now things have been set in motion.
The Witcher season 2 production pauses amid Coronavirus fears
By Tom Senior 16 March 2020
Probably best stay in that bath, Geralt.
(Image credit: Netflix)
The Witcher season two production is on hold for two weeks as Netflix moves to deal with the coronavirus situation in the UK. Deadline reports that production has been halted "to allow everyone the time to make informed decisions about how to move forward."
Netflix shut down production on all its shows in the US and Canada last week as President Trump declared a state of emergency. Cases in the UK have been steadily increasing, and many businesses are temporarily closing offices to try and slow the spread of the virus.
Vesemir, will feature in the new season. The new series will apparently ditch the scattershop time-hopping of Season one in favour of a more linear arc.