The Witcher series (Netflix)

Vidar said:
Only minor stuff really I guess, there's the fact Triss isn't a red head, they've changed the witcher medallion and he doesn't wear his two swords on his back like he's supposed to
Click to expand...

That's all wrong, that is all from the games which aren't canon. Triss has chestnut hair in the books, the medallion is just as described and he doesn't wear two swords on his back in the books.
 
I've only watched the first four but it was confusing to see Calanthe back again so that's 20-odd years earlier and then we go decades later for all that portal chasing thing.

It seems this first season is based on a series of short stories rather than one big novel so that could explain all this time hopping.
 
ic1male said:
I've only watched the first four but it was confusing to see Calanthe back again so that's 20-odd years earlier and then we go decades later for all that portal chasing thing.

It seems this first season is based on a series of short stories rather than one big novel so that could explain all this time hopping.
Click to expand...

The first two books are short stories so yes it is based on short stories.

I really love the music it fits so well.
 
Last edited:
It's not bad, but the story is much slower than it is in the games and hard to follow in places. Due to the seemingly random jumping between time periods.

It does get better after the first couple of episodes.

People moan about how some of the characters look, but the games did fill in a lot of the gaps (and change things) when it comes to that.
 
Last edited:
Only on episode 2 and really enjoying it so far. It really does get the feel spot on. The choreography of the fight scenes is fantastic. I like that it is set before the games too - I haven’t read the books, but the games allude to a lot of it.
 
Last edited:
A shocking waste of Netflix money. I have not cringed so much since Marco Polo, which has higher averages on RT. The books aren't the classics of Polish literature, but the source material is definitely better strung together than this. Perhaps there was too much of it to adapt to the small screen; perhaps the screenwriter is an idiot. I could only hold on for 4.5 episodes before consigning this to the bin.

From the pacing and wooden dialogue to the rent-a-medieval-vibe soundtrack at the least appropriate moments, it's a faecal bombardment of the senses only a masochist can withstand. Without emotional weight or plot coherency, the jangly carnage is comical.

To be watched only when severely inebriated, stoned or both. Avoid otherwise.
 
Well I have watched 6 episodes and I have to say, I did initially really enjoy it but there is something about it that doesn't sit right, I can't put my finger on it, I think it has something to do with the acting, sometimes it feels like a soap opera, even in the way it is shot - Still enjoying it to an extent, i'll watch the last 2 of course :)
 
Nasher said:
Only because the games are set much later on.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. The first game is set a few years after the end of the books, but they are not canon according to the original licencing and Andrzej Sapkowski, author of the books. CDPR also changed a lot of details, for example Triss is WAY nicer in the games plus shes a redhead - not so in the book or tv series.. The games really are a continuation of Geralt's story. The best way to think about it is that the books are canon to the games, but the games are not canon to the books.

It's silly really but that's Sapkowski's view so that's what we should accept :)
 
I've been looking forward to this as I'm a fan of the games and I really enjoyed the first episode. It was far better than I was expecting and the fight scene was fantastic. I'll probably binge the rest tonight and tomorrow as the missus is away for the weekend. :)

Boge said:
Geralt and Ciri so far so good and Roach is one handsome gorgeous beast of a horse.
Click to expand...

Why does his Roach never get stuck on top of a building though?!
 
Kerplunk said:
Well I have watched 6 episodes and I have to say, I did initially really enjoy it but there is something about it that doesn't sit right, I can't put my finger on it, I think it has something to do with the acting, sometimes it feels like a soap opera, even in the way it is shot - Still enjoying it to an extent, i'll watch the last 2 of course :)
Click to expand...


Something is definitely missing. It's nowhere near the "shocking waste of Netflix money" the poster above you ranted over, but it's just.... flat. Up until episode three I had mixed feelings because the whole Witcher world looks more of "A Knights Tale" (complete with **** forgettable pop music) rather than "Kingdom of Heaven". More of a "BBC's Robin Hood" than "Game of Thrones".

It's not even that the Witcher is not "slavic" enough. But it's not fantasy enough. Interiors and sets are clean, ironed, clean shaven, fumigated and perfumed. Furniture is fresh and unused as if straight from Velhadian IKEA. Costumes are... well, way to rich for a fantasy show - not as much dwarfish, elvish and medieval as renaissance or even baroque. Some of the choices are downright bizarre for the genre - not a chain mail in sight, but creased leathers on the army, silks and cross woven shiny, almost metallic looking artificial coloured garments on plebs. It's as "medieval" as Medieval Times restaurants in USA.

Post production is old school British TV like. Colour grading is like Eastenders. It doesn't have film feel, doesn't have the grain and harshness of GoT, instead it almost looks like shot on DLSR's at times. Weirdly, unnaturally lit interiors and exteriors, candles and torches on the walls but it's no "Vikings", there is this indirect light everywhere as if everyone is always surrounded by spotlights following them through forests and dungeons. It looks budget. Even battle scene early on looked like two handfuls of extras running in circles. I thought TV shows had this completely sorted, since Vikings and GoT.

Then there is the acting. It feels like a TV play at times, especially in early episodes every single character except Geralt deliver their lines as if every "fork off" and "up yours" required gravitas and solemnity of Brian Blessing citing Hamlet. There's been more variety in delivery, accents and tone on a single map/city/task in the game than throughout the entire Netflix show.

And then... the weirdest things is.. with very, very few exceptions there is no drama in it. Literally none. Witcher, friends, enemies, doing things. Plots are mostly OK. Fights are nice to watch. You don't give two monkeys about Ciri. You'd rather Jaskier/Dandelion was gone all together. Triss is jarring. When in fever Geralt whispers Renfri, it takes you half an episode to recall wtf Renfri even was, that's how forgettable she was whoever she was whenever she was. The "other main" characters of the episodes are neither interesting, talented, pretty or ugly enough to be memorable. It's all vanilla, all flat.

:(
 
Last edited:
v0n said:
Something is definitely missing. It's nowhere near the "shocking waste of Netflix money" the poster above you ranted over, but it's just.... flat. Up until episode three I had mixed feelings because the whole Witcher world looks more of "A Knights Tale" (complete with **** forgettable pop music) rather than "Kingdom of Heaven". More of a "BBC's Robin Hood" than "Game of Thrones".

It's not even that the Witcher is not "slavic" enough. But it's not fantasy enough. Interiors and sets are clean, ironed, clean shaven, fumigated and perfumed. Furniture is fresh and unused as if straight from Velhadian IKEA. Costumes are... well, way to rich for a fantasy show - not as much dwarfish, elvish and medieval as renaissance or even baroque. Some of the choices are downright bizarre for the genre - not a chain mail in sight, but creased leathers on the army, silks and cross woven shiny, almost metallic looking artificial coloured garments on plebs. It's as "medieval" as Medieval Times restaurants in USA.

Post production is old school British TV like. Colour grading is like Eastenders. It doesn't have film feel, doesn't have the grain and harshness of GoT, instead it almost looks like shot on DLSR's at times. Weirdly, unnaturally lit interiors and exteriors, candles and torches on the walls but it's no "Vikings", there is this indirect light everywhere as if everyone is always surrounded by spotlights following them through forests and dungeons. It looks budget. Even battle scene early on looked like two handfuls of extras running in circles. I thought TV shows had this completely sorted, since Vikings and GoT.

Then there is the acting. It feels like a TV play at times, especially in early episodes every single character except Geralt deliver their lines as if every "fork off" and "up yours" required gravitas and solemnity of Brian Blessing citing Hamlet. There's been more variety in delivery, accents and tone on a single map/city/task in the game than throughout the entire Netflix show.

And then... the weirdest things is.. with very, very few exceptions there is no drama in it. Literally none. Witcher, friends, enemies, doing things. Plots are mostly OK. Fights are nice to watch. You don't give two monkeys about Ciri. You'd rather Jaskier/Dandelion was gone all together. Triss is jarring. When in fever Geralt whispers Renfri, it takes you half an episode to recall wtf Renfri even was, that's how forgettable she was whoever she was whenever she was. The "other main" characters of the episodes are neither interesting, talented, pretty or ugly enough to be memorable. It's all vanilla, all flat.

:(
Click to expand...

I'll save you some lines: convincing acting, competent writing and presentation is missing. There's no need to mince words about it. It's a **** cash grab in a post GoT world which knows how to do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom