The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[callipygoustp]

--snipped video--

I loled :P

Enjoyed the show, watched the "honest trailer" - I loled several times myself.

[GreenJesus]

watched it a second time with my mom (who likes GoT very much)
after nostalgia weared off -> series is very bad
it expects you to know a lot of stuff
it throws unknown words at you as if you should be very interested to google them and learn about
1, 3 and 5 episodes are pretty good. others are shit
my mom kinda liked time jumps - made her feel smart for figuring it out

the fact that geralt is more beautiful than yennifer is stupid
it's all about the contrast that a very sexy sorceress lets some scarred stinky bum fuck her

overall it's a show for the fans that shits on fans... i felt embarassed for selling her this like "it's GoT on steroids about cool magic, love and family"

p.s. Hmm. Fuck.

Are you sure your knowledge of certain things didn't make you think that normies "needed" to know a lot of stuff? I bet normies wouldn't have even known what they were supposed to know.

[Orange Joe]

Are you sure your knowledge of certain things didn't make you think that normies "needed" to know a lot of stuff? I bet normies wouldn't have even known what they were supposed to know.

As someone who didn't really know anything about witcher. I had no real issues following the show without googling anything.

[Jotaux]

As someone who didn't really know anything about witcher. I had no real issues following the show without googling anything.

I also had no issues. I did find the second watch through a bit more enjoyable though because you were able to pick up on all the clues the events were happening at different times.

[Koriani]

I also had no issues. I did find the second watch through a bit more enjoyable though because you were able to pick up on all the clues the events were happening at different times.

Same.

I didn't find anything all that 'hard to figure out' about the show - having zippo experience with the Witcher otherwise (the controls ont he PC ports of the games always pissed me off before I got through the tutorials lol) - OUTSIDE Of the fact that the time-line was all bunched together. I knew something was a bit off but couldn't put words into what I was confused about, exactly.

It wasn't until the episode that actually showed the 'wedding party' events that led to the Surprise Promise (that ended up being the girl) that I realized they were showing episodes not-in-timeline order and as soon as I realized that, everything else clicked sensically and orderly into place with the plot.

But even without that knowledge, I never felt a need to look anything up. I could pretty much understand "Medieval world - magic exists - 'witchers' are magic guys who are hired to kill monsters' which is really the basis of the whole thing. I could understand, "malformed girl - dreams of better - gets picked to train for mage school - hey its not all great there."

The rest is just world details - seen in any other dozens if not hundreds of books/movies/games of similiar ilk under different terms. Which is not meant as an insult to the writer, show, game, etc. - its just a statement of any genre of fiction, really. Just saying this version of fantasy fiction isn't so alien in its concepts that you can't follow the show without prior knolwedge.

I enjoyed the show, even with some of its 'campy' ness. Hubby however, couldn't make it past the "Toss a Coin" episode. And to be fair, gosh I hate that song. lol. I more agree with what the ScreenJunkie put it - "Not so much GoT as Xena, but I ain't mad." It is not GoT, but that's ok - I never wanted, asked, or needed it to be. Just think Hubby doesn't like the lighter fantasy faire and prefers the heavier, dark, plot thick stuff. Which isn't the first season of Witcher.

[Witchblade77]

I'm honestly, genuinely HAPPY that its more Xena then GoT. and not because of how GoT went off the rails, but because I prefer my fantasy to revel in its fantastical elements including and especially cheesetastic ones, rather then brand itself as "fantasy for people who hate fantasy" and keep it as such.

I do have to agree that first season almost expected the viewer to have some background knowledge. I know I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much if I was less familiar with the world. but my mind filled in all the gaps in the narrative because of my prior familiarity. that is NOT however a good way of writing a narrative, so I hope they tell future stories with more coherence. and for the love of god - look up what monsters should actualy look like according to Slavic mythology instead of reinventing the wheel. (although to be fair, game also is guilty of this to some degree - probably cause they wanted monsters to look more monstrous and less human)

[Twdft]

I do have to agree that first season almost expected the viewer to have some background knowledge. I know I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much if I was less familiar with the world. but my mind filled in all the gaps in the narrative because of my prior familiarity.

I don't think you really needed background knowledge to enjoy the show, but with it you certainly enjoy it more.

To be honest season 2 might be nice for people without background knowledge for a certain big plot development, if the show does it right.

[s_bushido]

I do have to agree that first season almost expected the viewer to have some background knowledge.

Why do people keep saying this? Is it because it's not immediately apparent that they're telling things out of order? Because other than an "oh!" moment when it became obvious, that didn't prevent me from following what was going on. (The only Witcher content I was familiar with before watching the show was the story about the girl he ended up having to kill to stop her killing that sorcerer.)

[Witchblade77]

Why do people keep saying this? Is it because it's not immediately apparent that they're telling things out of order? Because other than an "oh!" moment when it became obvious, that didn't prevent me from following what was going on. (The only Witcher content I was familiar with before watching the show was the story about the girl he ended up having to kill to stop her killing that sorcerer.)

not becasue of how they told the story, but rather just world building in general. it barely skims over geography, politics of the various countries, who or why people are, it just throws you into the narrative and while its absolutely 100% possible to follow the story and the timeline, IMO, a lot of the nuance can be missed if you are not familiar with the world at least to some degree.

even with Renfri, a bit is missing from her story in a show, vs the book, and I was able to appreciate that story MORE, having read the book. like the fact that you missed the part that he killed her not to protect the sorcerer, but to protect the townfolk that she was planning on holding hostage and killing one by one (they kinda implied it via the girl he meets earlier, but IMO not very well), until Wizard would come out to defend them. as wizards typically are. except Geralt was 1. familiar with Stregobor and his bullshit. 2. didn't want innocent townspeople to die as pawns to conflict they had nothing to do with. which is why it hurt so much more to be labeled a Butcher of Blavikin and hated by the very people whose lives he saved.

background knowledge is not necessary to appreciate the bones of the story, but BOY does it help with details. you know?

[s_bushido]

like the fact that you missed the part that he killed her not to protect the sorcerer, but to protect the townfolk

I mean...I personally usually watch shows while I'm doing something else, so my missing some detail (or not retaining as much as I probably should) isn't exactly surprising.

But I've always been a person who prefers them to just throw you into the world instead of spending way too long on back story that's only tangentially relevant to what's going on with the characters we're actually following. That's the trap a ton of adaptations fall into, and I'm glad they didn't do it here.

[Witchblade77]

I mean...I personally usually watch shows while I'm doing something else, so my missing some detail (or not retaining as much as I probably should) isn't exactly surprising.

But I've always been a person who prefers them to just throw you into the world instead of spending way too long on back story that's only tangentially relevant to what's going on with the characters we're actually following. That's the trap a ton of adaptations fall into, and I'm glad they didn't do it here.

but.. they DID spend way too much on back story. they expanded on the backstories that books barely touched on/mostly implied. the real meat of the Witcher narrative doesn't even start until season 2 when they start covering Blood of Elves. they just didn't expand on world building enough IMO. which IS possible to do as you go along, and WHILE throwing you directly into the narrative.

[Logwyn]

When will we get season 2 and 3?!?

[Skizzit]

When will we get season 2 and 3?!?

Going to be awhile. Filming was supposed to start early 2020 for an early 2021 release but because the world went to shit, it was pushed back. Don't expect it until late 2021 at the earliest.

[Ragnarohk]

Season 1 was... Lackluster

Don't know why many put it the same level as GoT

[Logwyn]

Season 1 was... Lackluster

Don't know why many put it the same level as GoT

Season 7ish and 8 of GoT lowered GoT by a great deal in some minds.

[Ihavewaffles]

UPDATED: Yennefer in new outfit and Ciri filming on horseback for The Witcher Season 2

https://redanianintelligence.com/202...cher-season-2/
By Gravemaster in Reporton October 21, 2020

[Icelin]

Ugh, I can't stand Henry Cavill. I don't care how ripped you got for your in Witcher Henry. It doesn't improve your acting capability. I repeat it will not improve your acting capability.

So at first I gave this man a chance because I thought Superman is a hard role to carry. Like seriously, it probably would be for any actor, but then I saw him in Mission Impossible - Fallout. So awful, so stale, so bland, so monotone. It solidified that this was not a fluke. He is not that impressive of an actor.

Please keep him away from Warcraft. I remember trying to promote keeping him away from that Geralt role. It did not work.

Anyways besides them trying to ruin Geralt. They were successful in ruining Triss in this show. I disliked her portrayal and actress a lot. She was written with no energy. Which that is not like her character at all. Why did this happen? They didn't want competition for Yennefer? Who really knows. I would've preferred both girls to be stellar. As I enjoy them both quite a bit. It's sad they ended up making her so meek.

[ohiostate124]

Henry is fine. Bring on the Warcraft movie with him.

[Mteq]

Henry is fine. Bring on the Warcraft movie with him.

wait what? a new warcraft movie?

[Sorshen]

Ugh, I can't stand Henry Cavill. I don't care how ripped you got for your in Witcher Henry. It doesn't improve your acting capability. I repeat it will not improve your acting capability.

So at first I gave this man a chance because I thought Superman is a hard role to carry. Like seriously, it probably would be for any actor, but then I saw him in Mission Impossible - Fallout. So awful, so stale, so bland, so monotone. It solidified that this was not a fluke. He is not that impressive of an actor.

What are you talking about? He's a decent actor - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1638355/