[Cause]

They covered the last wish plot I think it’s just the way they cover it leaves the human connections falling flat. I dont but their connection. It feels forced.

[Gothos]

So they're rushing it. Great.

[Puck]

Cause, on 21 December 2019 - 04:37 PM, said:

Why did they decide to make three timelines? Why?

Also not familiar with the books so I can’t tell if the book has a similar narrative structure but the tv show seems to gloss over important plot like renfri in episode 1 and Geralts relationship with a certain sorceroress. The show tells me they care for each other, there was no build up, no showing. Geraldo is deeply moved by render but I can’t really say why. His relationship with the bard is similarly confusing.

Even in the oldest timeline Gerald is a man who does the right thing no matter what. What shapes him to be this way.

The books are pretty linear. There are the occasional time jumps, but they are brief and not in the short stories, and there's most definitely not the amount of timelines running parallel. For example, Yennefer's past is barely touched upon in the books. It's explained but it's very clear that it happens to explain her present character, it's not dragged out or treated as a different storyline at all. I haven't watched much of the series yet as I'm waiting to watch the whole thing with friends, but from what I have watched it looks like they are trying to run a bunch of the short stories and earlier books parallel when in the books they are in a linear sequence.

Also, in the books, the relationship between Geralt and Yennefer is a tricky thing that relies in a big part on their physical attraction to each other and clashes with when their personalities come into it. Maybe in the series they are trying to convey how in the books it's questionable whether their attraction is even natural or magical, but that's just the most benevolent interpretation I can think off. I may simply be biased because I felt like the games depicted Yennefer perfectly, both in how she is described looks-wise as well as personality. I am willing to accept changes in regards to looks due to this being a life action series, but for me, the series Yennefer has nothing of the book Yennefer's personality, which is domineering and harsh with few moments of showing a softer side.

As for Geralt always doing the right thing... It may be because it's been a while since I last read the books, but I'm pretty sure one huge point the books make is that it is impossible to always do the right thing. A point is made of Geralt having tried that when he first went out into the world and it going wrong right away. And later on, his singular focus on Ciri means he disregards other people actively while acknowledging that he is NOT doing what would objectively be the right thing. Again, haven't watched much of the series yet, but this does not sound great, tbh.

[Primateus]

Finished the show. I liked it
I'm not going to go into "oh but that's not how it was in the book/game", first of all because I haven't read the books and second because I feel it's maybe just a smidge irrelevant. Not that the source material isn't relevant. Of course it's relevant. But I always go into movie/series adaptations with the expectation that it can't ever be "just like the book". There will be differences and that, I feel, is okay.

It took me a while to figure out that it was all taking place at different times in the story, but when I finally did, I think it clicked rather well with me.

Yeah, I liked it and I'll be eagerly waiting for season 2.

[Brujah]

Toss a coin to your Witcher

Oh Valley of plenty, oh oh oh

Toss a coin to your Witcher

Oh Valley of plenty, oh oh oh



Finished as well. It's good. It could yet be great.

Dazzling scenery at times, and great music for the genre.

I'll definitely be waiting to watch more.


What say you, oh great Geralt of Rivia?

"....hmmmm."

I couldn't have said it better, myself!

".....hmmmm."


As long as one of the Monsters in the near future doesn't challenge him to a game of Scrabble, I think he's good.

"....hmmmmm"

No, that's not a word! And definitely not for double points.

"....hmmmmmmmm"

You can't use the same word! I mean...it's not even a word.

....hmmmmmmmmm"

What do you mean the second one is a different word because it's longer?!

Scrabble Monster, "Just take what you came for and go!"

This post has been edited by Brujah: 22 December 2019 - 05:04 PM

[Puck]

Primateus, on 22 December 2019 - 04:34 PM, said:

Finished the show. I liked it
I'm not going to go into "oh but that's not how it was in the book/game", first of all because I haven't read the books and second because I feel it's maybe just a smidge irrelevant. Not that the source material isn't relevant. Of course it's relevant. But I always go into movie/series adaptations with the expectation that it can't ever be "just like the book". There will be differences and that, I feel, is okay.

The problem is, the show runners claimed to be closely following the books, so if people are scrutinizing them based on the closeness to the books, they brought it down on themselves. Could've just not said anything.

That being said, I don't really care that much, personally. When it comes to series/movies based on books, my first concern is whether the series/movie gets the tone and atmosphere right. It's absolutely doable and has been done before (I'm not a big watcher of series/movies, but I felt like for example American Gods, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, Good Omens and The Handmaid's Tale all were great adaptations that changed things as needed - AG even added entire storylines - for the medium while still keeping the core of the narrative and the tone true to the source material). As far as the Witcher goes, while it is true that Sapkowski drew inspiration from all over Europe for his countries and cultures, the core of the tale and its themes and tone are very Slavic and his main characters all have very distinct personalities that can be played with, but should, imo, at the very least be recognizable by not just slapping a name on them. So far, to me, it has nothing of that feel. The music for example, which I am enjoying a great deal, is so far THE ONLY thing that has any Slavic feel for me, which feels very jarring when layered over the cliche western fantasy setting they otherwise chose to portray. It does not fit and I find the whole absence of any kind of overarching tone highly distracting.

This post has been edited by Puck: 22 December 2019 - 07:26 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

First episode done. Bit ponderous in places but there's enough to keep me going for definite. Haven't read the books and don't remember much about the games (never finished 3).

Enjoying it though and my wife, who knows nothing about the lore, is also keen to continue.

[Puck]

For what it's worth, my mom just watched the first three episodes and said, unpromted (I didn't tell her my opinion, just asked if she wants to watch it since she was rereading the first couple of books last week), that the series does not follow the books and that Geralt doesn't have "Geralt's look, in his eyes, I mean". She called it "watchable", so far.

[Gem Windcaster]

I love this show SO much, I can't wait for season 2. Absolutely amazing, a lot better than GoT imo. 10/10 from me.

[Andorion]

They are following the short stories so far, but also chopping and changing.

Honestly, I don't really blame the creators that much. The short stories are a bit tough to adapt.
I think this season feels more like a prelude for Yen and Geralt. We are seeing their backstories, what the do and how they think before they are thrust in with Ciri.

Now, I myself did not like the novels. I felt that they were too Ciri centric where they should have been Geralt centric. I thought that the structure, flow and the pacing of the novels were off. Also I did not like the overarching character and event arcs at the finale.

So I would not be too disappointed if the show diverged from the books.

One thing I like consistently is Jaskier (Dandelion) I think they more or less nailed him as portrayed.

[Tattersail_]

My brother doesn't read and hasn't played Witcher. Loved the show. Buzzing off it

[Coltaine -]

Watched the first two episodes so far.

The first episode was great. I think choosing the short story the lesser evil instead of the witcher as a starting point was a good decision. And making the real start of Ciri's story the other half is a good fit.

In case of the second episode I'm not a fan of adding a third timeline into the mix, because while Yen's story advanced quite a bit, the other two story lines were really short and at least the edge of the world could have used some more minutes. And I currently have the feeling, that it would been better to introduce Yennefer and her relationship with Geralt first, before dedicating an episode to her backstory later in the season or maybe season two. At least in the books her backstory isn't that important for the development of her character over the course of the story. On the other hand I now understand why they cast the actress. If they were planning to do Yen's backstory in detail from the start, they had to pick someone who could play her in her teens.

By the way, were there any clues about the place of Yen's story in the timeline I missed? I couldn't pin-point it aside from the fact that it is before the Geralt & Jaskier story.


Also while Jaskier's song is great, my initial reaction to it was "Jaskier you damn idiot. Punch him Geralt. He deserves it."

[Brujah]

@Puck from above. (On cell don't feel like reply/edit)

I love American God's, Good Omens is GREAT, and J and Mr. N is one of my absolute favs. I liked the Handmaidens Tale movie, but haven't watched the series.

[Brujah]

I rewatched a couple episodes. Yennefer is becoming my fav character of any series of late.

I didn't even finish The Watchman or His Dark Materials. The Witcher is growing on me more and more. The OA or Dark was probably my fav, but we might have a lead change eventually.

[Brujah]

Anyone else notice some subtle similarities with Game of Thrones?

Geralt is the White Wolf. His symbol is a wolf. Then you have Cintra and their blond hair as the Lion Cub. Temeria has the brother and sister incest.

And although it's not Gots, but Renfri looks like her broach is The Mockingjay from Hunger Games.

[Tiste Simeon]

Eps 2 & 3 done, really liking this show. Dandelion was ace and the introduction to Yen was a fascinating story.

Utterly love the song at the end of episode 2.

[Coltaine -]

Brujah, on 23 December 2019 - 11:26 PM, said:

Anyone else notice some subtle similarities with Game of Thrones?

Geralt is the White Wolf. His symbol is a wolf. Then you have Cintra and their blond hair as the Lion Cub. Temeria has the brother and sister incest.

And although it's not Gots, but Renfri looks like her broach is The Mockingjay from Hunger Games.

The Witcher did it first ^^

But it is just a coincidence in my opinion. I don't think that Martin had any chance to read the first books from Sapkowski before he started writting A Song of Ice and Fire

[Puck]

Brujah, on 23 December 2019 - 11:26 PM, said:

Anyone else notice some subtle similarities with Game of Thrones?

Geralt is the White Wolf. His symbol is a wolf. Then you have Cintra and their blond hair as the Lion Cub. Temeria has the brother and sister incest.

And although it's not Gots, but Renfri looks like her broach is The Mockingjay from Hunger Games.

As Coltaine has already said, Sapkowski did it first. The Witcher books (at least the start of the series) were written and published before GoT. I personally think the show runners are playing up the coincidental similarities, completely ignoring - YET AGAIN - their origins. Geralt is called the White Wolf because the wolf is the ancient totem animal of the Slavic people. As so many other such fiction characters, he is a stand-in symbol. The white wolf in particular is a symbol of the Slavic god of the sun, underworld and the patron of the dead, Dazbog. And while Dazbog has been mostly forgotten the cultural association of the wolf with winter and death is very much still alive. Nothing to do with GoT.

But what I actually came here to say:
WHAT THE HELL HAS QUEEN CALANTHE DONE TO THE SHOW RUNNERS? Did she eat their firstborn sons or why did they have to do her so dirty? That performance and, before that, the writing that led to it is a disgrace.

This post has been edited by Puck: 25 December 2019 - 02:29 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

So I'm a bit confused on Ep4.

Spoiler

Are the three stories in different times? I thought Calanthe was dead... She appeared at the feast for her daughter's wedding... It seems that the Yennefer story is at a different point too. Are they all origin stories to come together later? As in, the stuff we're seeing with Ciri is the "Present" and the Geralt bits are all in the "past" am I right?

This post has been edited by Tiste Simeon: 25 December 2019 - 07:56 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Actually it seems I'm right there. It makes more sense now I've thought on it. Don't quite understand the Law of Surprise though. Thought they rushed the explanation somewhat.