They all seem to do that these days.
Loads of sex and nudity at first, then next to nothing.
The Witcher series (Netflix)
- Thread starter Devrij
- Start date
They all seem to do that these days.
Loads of sex and nudity at first, then next to nothing.
You mean Little Finger, the brothel owner, had in his brothel, two naked women doing sexy stuff - shocking I tell you, completely out of context
My point is that showing the actual nudity / sex in the way that it did had zero relevance to the aspects of the show that people claim it’s good for. It was a deliberate choice to include the extent of nudity they did early on in the show and it was deffo not for ‘high brow’ reasons… more just titillation to help find an audience.
They dropped it pretty quick which was wise IMO. Feels much more balanced as it progresses.
I mention this only because GoT was brought up as an example of saying audiences can be trusted with intelligent and nuanced material, which is deffo true and a good shout, but it’s also true that the TV show initially leaned heavily on its low brow nudity as a selling point - which shows (IMO) that even the best of shows sometimes have to cherry pick what they show to appeal to a wide audience.
Soldato
You seem to confuse argument with discussion, I am fine to have a discussion with anyone about any subject, without it turning into a name-calling game or shouting match.
People grow and change their opinions via discussion, all your point seems to be is to follow me around the forum and go on about how I have an agenda without actually substantiating your position..
See I disagree to a certain degree, the nudity/sex scenes are in the book (hell they are more frequent and graphic), and a faithful adaptation of the source material will largely include these - for what it's worth I don't think they were anywhere near as excessive as say Banshee or Spartacus as examples.
Caporegime
Do you not know what the meaning of the word argue is? Go look it up, has nothing to do with name-calling or shouting.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,562
Netflix Producer Says Some Witcher Book Changes Are 'Necessary' but 'Painful for Us' Too - IGN
An executive producer at Netflix has said making changes to The Witcher books is "necessary" but "painful for us" too following fan criticism of the show.
Speaking to Polish outlet Wyborcza, as translated by Redanian Intelligence, executive producer Tomasz Bagiński said the Witcher's story can't be pulled directly from Andrzej Sapkowski's books because it wouldn't make for good TV, and having to make changes is difficult for the writers too.
So you did your own thing instead, and it still made for bad TV...
Last edited:
I will give it a 6/10 left me quite confused as to what is going on, but i can live with that 
was more about the rest of the cast then the witcher witchering which is fair enough. However Boob count/sexy time was not enough and yes its important and yes i am that shallow
was more about the rest of the cast then the witcher witchering which is fair enough. However Boob count/sexy time was not enough and yes its important and yes i am that shallow
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,562
I will give it a 6/10 left me quite confused as to what is going on, but i can live with that
Ooh. Maybe ill watch it!
GoT and witcher. Both shows I've watched (not last season of witcher).
Both have a lot of similarities.
GoT was leagues ahead.
Witcher has seemed(from the start) to deliberately make it confusing for noobs like me to follow. So I don't know what the recent comments about dumbing down relate to.
One thing I personally struggled with (and it's a real mental block for me) is getting confused about who's who and where individuals are.
In GoT it was really clear where things were. They spent enough time in each location and with the core characters to 'get it'.
In witcher they didn't even put text on screen of the place name. They jump around and don't really provide backstory. There's a deluge of characters and nothing really (for me) clicked.
As time went on, because I didn't 'get' the basics like geography and character names it provided me with a weak foundation. And as stuff was built on it all collapsed in my mind.
The only bit I really followed was the bit around the home of the Witcher group. Lots of time was spent here. But the other towns just became a garbled mess in my head.
Got was complex. And required thought. But it followed and the base understanding was there.
For me, I never obtained that base in witcher. And thus the show just became a confusing mess to me. And eventually I gave up.
Both have a lot of similarities.
GoT was leagues ahead.
Witcher has seemed(from the start) to deliberately make it confusing for noobs like me to follow. So I don't know what the recent comments about dumbing down relate to.
One thing I personally struggled with (and it's a real mental block for me) is getting confused about who's who and where individuals are.
In GoT it was really clear where things were. They spent enough time in each location and with the core characters to 'get it'.
In witcher they didn't even put text on screen of the place name. They jump around and don't really provide backstory. There's a deluge of characters and nothing really (for me) clicked.
As time went on, because I didn't 'get' the basics like geography and character names it provided me with a weak foundation. And as stuff was built on it all collapsed in my mind.
The only bit I really followed was the bit around the home of the Witcher group. Lots of time was spent here. But the other towns just became a garbled mess in my head.
Got was complex. And required thought. But it followed and the base understanding was there.
For me, I never obtained that base in witcher. And thus the show just became a confusing mess to me. And eventually I gave up.
Last edited:
Soldato
I loved Spartacus but I agree that by the last two seasons it ended up almost as softcore p*rn at times amongst the unknown/named background actors, which was fairly unnecessary vs say the Little Finger stuff. Where it did nudity "right" I felt was around the scenes of the lead actors whose nudity (male and female) didn't feel anywhere near as gratuitous (despite being done often) compared to those S3/4 background actors.
Caporegime
Spartacus was crazy over the top in nudity. The slow-mo scans of the crowd just casually waving their **** around. I loved that show at the time but I've never rewatched it and I think it would feel really strange watching it now. Like watching some of the casual racism in mid 90's shows.
Gawd - so no place for nudity now then also ? Would you like women to be covered head to toe ?
Would it be okay though if Spartacus was based on a series of books where nudity/sex was mentioned extensively or would you still have an objection ? - because that seem to think that is a shining defence for the incredibly weak series that The Witcher turned out to be.
Caporegime
Caporegime
Yes I really said that didn't I...
Caporegime
Where did I say something was wrong with nudity? Do people have reading comprehension issues?
You said you didn't like too much of it, and that watching too much of it in a show would be akin to watching casual racism.