The Witcher is getting a Netflix series

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Nah, i said i would think it would be better to make both interactions, across time, with different actress, but thats my opinion, i don't mind rly either way and im fine if it was his decision, enjoyed the show and her acting quite well

You literally said he was lying about his casting choices to "to shield the show from critics".

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53216428
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53219127

[Ivanstone]

what? that channel is a different one, it have only up to season 2, season 3 is another piece of info that you don't want to acknowledge or refuse saying people are lying.

"your interpretation" lmao, dude spelled out it his story, but you do you.

Wrong again.

Nah, i said i would think it would be better to make both interactions, across time, with different actress, but thats my opinion, i don't mind rly either way and im fine if it was his decision, enjoyed the show and her acting quite well

You've yet to provide season 3 info. Why you hiding it?

He didn't say Geralt was the main character. He just wrote it through his eyes. Until he didn't. PS Original article was in Russian.

I dunno. Don't think you'd like a woke writer like Gaiman.

- - - Updated - - -

IMDB will post screen time per character for things like movies I remember checking it in the past for some marvel movies, I’d assume they do the same for shows but likely per episode and then you’d just take those times and make a graphic.

I saw one for the entire MCU and some other movies and shows. Couldn't find one for The Witcher. I think it might be there but I'm not sure exactly where. Could also be hidden behind IMDBpro.

[Okacz]

Its your word against the author itself

This reminds me of people saying Neil Gaiman was wrong about his Sandman takes

Is the fact that Ciri in the 3rd book has more PoV pages than Geralt irrelevant? All the stuff about Ciri's training with Yennefer and her stay in Gors Velen, fighting at Thanedd (Ciri's encounter with Cahir was way less lame in the books tho), Korath desert and meeting with Rats, that's a lot of stuff. There's even extra stuff that didn't make into the show, like a whole chapter of her being transported from the desert to the inn. Yeah, she literally has more screentime than Geralt in that book and, I believe, the ones that follow it. Don't feel like counting those tho, way more pages.

As for the author's words, all Witcher books are anchored to Geralt. It all started with short stories about him, the Saga is put into motion by him taking care of Ciri, all the other medicore material after that is exclusively Geralt. Of course he's the top dog. But if we discuss the Saga, which is being adapted by the show, it's pretty much 50/50 Geralt and Ciri PoV, with some books focusing more on Ciri. Makes sense to me.

And S3 was, overall, quite faithful to the source material. They did a lot of changes, yes, but so did Lord of the Fucking Rings, and that was great. S3 is held back by the fact by some of the previously made up plot lines, weird casting choices and overall bad writing whenever they try to do it on their own. But unlike S2 it didn't really make up a lot of new shit, and followed the chain of events from the book pretty well. Including some scenes that were almost word to word with the book counterparts, like Codringher.

[Syegfryed]

You literally said he was lying about his casting choices to "to shield the show from critics".

so? both of things can be right, i think that is one of the reason he did, but i still can have no problem with it even believing that,because he is the author, he ultimately have the final say of how things will be portrayed. I even said, "i could care less". There is a big jump in this case to believe the author is lying about the main character of the witcher saga.

- - - Updated - - -

Is the fact that Ciri in the 3rd book has more PoV pages than Geralt irrelevant?

not at all, why it would be?

As for the author's words, all Witcher books are anchored to Geralt. It all started with short stories about him, the Saga is put into motion by him taking care of Ciri, all the other medicore material after that is exclusively Geralt. Of course he's the top dog. But if we discuss the Saga, which is being adapted by the show, it's pretty much 50/50 Geralt and Ciri PoV, with some books focusing more on Ciri. Makes sense to me.

And i 100% believe that, to me the problem lies more on people who think there is cna only be ONE protagonist in the story, and in some cases this indeed happens, we can't deny that Harry is the main protagonist of Harry potter, while his friends are also protagonists but much more irrelevant than him.

If you compare to lord of the rings, who is the main protagonist? Frodo? Aragorn?, i think all the fellowship is a main protagonist, and the focus shift from then, Same way i think ciri and Geral are the main protagonists. In this case, Geralt was the main protagonist, until he turn into a deuteragonist role in the last books.

And S3 was, overall, quite faithful to the source material. They did a lot of changes, yes, but so did Lord of the Fucking Rings, and that was great. S3 is held back by the fact by some of the previously made up plot lines, weird casting choices and overall bad writing whenever they try to do it on their own. But unlike S2 it didn't really make up a lot of new shit, and followed the chain of events from the book pretty well. Including some scenes that were almost word to word with the book counterparts, like Codringher.

And i guess this goes back to my previous point, if they are changing a lot of things anyway, why not change more to give Geralt more, well, more, from season 1 to now it seems they are on purpose erasing his character presence, so this does not seems like its just because they are adapting a book that does not have much of him, they seems on the intent to make him a side character for the overall plot, and i don't imagine this is the show people rly want to see

You've yet to provide season 3 info. Why you hiding it?

I did, what the heck are you talking about?

He didn't say Geralt was the main character. He just wrote it through his eyes. Until he didn't. PS Original article was in Russian.

No he said it was his history, its there for you to see

I dunno. Don't think you'd like a woke writer like Gaiman.

Sandman was pretty good, some highs and downs, but good

[Koriani]

Because you’re very slow:
If you haven’t watched the show, you’re not going to be disappointed by Cavill’s lack of screen time. Because you haven’t watched it yet.
If you have watched the show, you might be disappointed by Cavill’s screen time. However by the time you figure that out, you’ve already counted towards Netflix’s metrics.
If you’re actively counting people’s screen time, you’re probably watching it multiple times to make sure your stats line up. Therefore driving up Netflix’s metrics.

Same goes for “bad”. You don’t know something is bad till you watch it.

Meanwhile you know who definitely hasn’t watched it? People without Netflix accounts.

PS New season was pretty good. Better than season 2 although I feel the finale left on a bigger cliffhanger than I would’ve liked. And yes I did like watching Ciri tripping balls in the desert.

Just wanted to pipe in a say - people without netflix accounts HAVE watched it. I'm one. Jailbroke firestick.

I'm two episodes out from the end of third season, so I don't know how it ends yet - but while I will agree with you (Ivanstone) I did think (so far) this season was better than season 2, but that's not saying much. The entire show is a massive disappointment for me but with Cavill and the lack of anything else to watch, I've hung in.

But its been really hard not to just fast forward through everything that doesn't involve Geralt, Yenn, and Ciri.

As for the complaint about screen time - I heard the same from summaries of season 2. I *can* believe it, because of entire episodes having little Geralt presence in both seasons, and I don't like it. But its not the first place or time i've seen the time comparisons.

And I would argue the lack of focus on Geralt IS part of the major problem of the show - as most reviewers and watchers agree - because when its not about "The Witcher" its about a bunch of politics that no one gives two shits about (because the writers can't write decent political drama apparently.)

But its entirely possible, and easy, to watch without Netflix. (But you are right, my metrics don't count. And I don't care.)

- - - Updated - - -

Probably because they wanted to do a GameofThrones-y season.

They forgot the gratuitous sex, the blood, fight and killings to move forward the pawns of the game. All merged and mixed together for maximum effect.

As for nudity and sex, they emptied their stock in S1. Probably got scared some part of the audience would complain for the "female objectifying" or something like that.

See, this to me is the entire problem of the show's writing staff.

It may be that they were trying to stick more with the books. It may bee that they wanted to "Game of Thrones" it more. But the biggest issue is apparently they just /can't/ write that and do it well. And that's why the show sucks.

What they can 'write well' is simple adventure and "adopted family dynamic" episodes. Those work just fine. But as soon as they try and write out of that wheelhouse, the whole plot and show suffered for it.

[Ivanstone]

Just wanted to pipe in a say - people without netflix accounts HAVE watched it. I'm one. Jailbroke firestick.

I'm two episodes out from the end of third season, so I don't know how it ends yet - but while I will agree with you (Ivanstone) I did think (so far) this season was better than season 2, but that's not saying much. The entire show is a massive disappointment for me but with Cavill and the lack of anything else to watch, I've hung in.

But its been really hard not to just fast forward through everything that doesn't involve Geralt, Yenn, and Ciri.

As for the complaint about screen time - I heard the same from summaries of season 2. I *can* believe it, because of entire episodes having little Geralt presence in both seasons, and I don't like it. But its not the first place or time i've seen the time comparisons.

And I would argue the lack of focus on Geralt IS part of the major problem of the show - as most reviewers and watchers agree - because when its not about "The Witcher" its about a bunch of politics that no one gives two shits about (because the writers can't write decent political drama apparently.)

But its entirely possible, and easy, to watch without Netflix. (But you are right, my metrics don't count. And I don't care.)

I avoided discussing the piracy side of things. Yes, people do pirate stuff. However, the big companies also keep track of this stuff. GoT for example had very high viewership on HBO. It was also pirated out the wazoo. HBO was sort of fine with the piracy because it showed that people were very engaged with the show. I do not know if Netflix does the same for the Witcher.

Geralt has more screen time than everyone else for season 1 and 2. He probably has the most screen time for S3E1 - E6. I’ll wait for a more reasonable source to conduct their analysis.

Cavill allegedly prefers a direct adaptation of the books. I don’t think he would want a monster of the week type series like some fans would prefer. I’m personally fine with the politics and think the writing is sufficient. I wouldn’t put it at GoT level for fantasy or something like Last Kingdom for a medieval flavour. As for whether people give two shits about the politics that’s debatable. Some people want it because they like the politics. Some people want a direct adaption of the books. Some people want monster of the week. Some people want to see Henry Cavill in black leather. Personally I’m on Team Politics because it tells a story at least.

[Fabinas]

I avoided discussing the piracy side of things. Yes, people do pirate stuff. However, the big companies also keep track of this stuff. GoT for example had very high viewership on HBO. It was also pirated out the wazoo. HBO was sort of fine with the piracy because it showed that people were very engaged with the show. I do not know if Netflix does the same for the Witcher.

Geralt has more screen time than everyone else for season 1 and 2. He probably has the most screen time for S3E1 - E6. I’ll wait for a more reasonable source to conduct their analysis.

Cavill allegedly prefers a direct adaptation of the books. I don’t think he would want a monster of the week type series like some fans would prefer. I’m personally fine with the politics and think the writing is sufficient. I wouldn’t put it at GoT level for fantasy or something like Last Kingdom for a medieval flavour. As for whether people give two shits about the politics that’s debatable. Some people want it because they like the politics. Some people want a direct adaption of the books. Some people want monster of the week. Some people want to see Henry Cavill in black leather. Personally I’m on Team Politics because it tells a story at least.

Oh, i'm in the Team Politics as well. But only if i was made to care about them.

Having S1 being how Geralt meets Ciri, having S2 Geralt training Ciri and that strange plot about Yennefer joining them through her search for maternity and treason, there was no space for making the actual politics between kingdoms matter much. Whatever plot involved them it was uninteresting and very badly connected to the above triad.

If writing was better, maybe, maybe S3 would make people invested and interested how all this politics game between kingdoms and Aretuza played and where it ended and how were the protagonists involved in it. To me that was all disjointed and boring.

[Koriani]

I avoided discussing the piracy side of things. Yes, people do pirate stuff. However, the big companies also keep track of this stuff. GoT for example had very high viewership on HBO. It was also pirated out the wazoo. HBO was sort of fine with the piracy because it showed that people were very engaged with the show. I do not know if Netflix does the same for the Witcher.

Geralt has more screen time than everyone else for season 1 and 2. He probably has the most screen time for S3E1 - E6. I’ll wait for a more reasonable source to conduct their analysis.

Cavill allegedly prefers a direct adaptation of the books. I don’t think he would want a monster of the week type series like some fans would prefer. I’m personally fine with the politics and think the writing is sufficient. I wouldn’t put it at GoT level for fantasy or something like Last Kingdom for a medieval flavour. As for whether people give two shits about the politics that’s debatable. Some people want it because they like the politics. Some people want a direct adaption of the books. Some people want monster of the week. Some people want to see Henry Cavill in black leather. Personally I’m on Team Politics because it tells a story at least.

Understood on the piracy point, just feeling 'literal' I guess and it was a good way to open the post .

I don't really care about 'screen time analysis' myself, I enjoy it or not regardless of what the percentage breakdown is. But to me its 'related' to many peoples' problems with the show, because when Geralt isn't on screen its about the politics and the politics aren't "hitting it" for many. I'm not trying to speak for the masses, I'm only speaking to my own experiences, those of others I know who still watch, and every single published review I've bothered reading that was positive about the show at all - were all "politic part is where it falls apart" in their reviews.

And finding myself agreeing with Fabinas's points overall. I don't mind Team Politics in the genre as a whole. I love GoT - read all the books years before the show came out and loved the show until it jumped-the-dragon =D. I love the Dune Series. I love all sorts of scifi and fantasy with heavy politics.

I played the Witcher 3 for about 200 hours - THOUGHT I understood and 'got' the politics of the world, just fine.

But then I watch the show, and I'm just confused and lost by the 2nd season. I don't know why any of these figures are important (even after 200 hours of witcher 3) in the context of what I was shown in the show. I watched First season and thinking, repeatedly, "If I didn't play Witcher 3 - would I even care about this part at all?" To find out by the end of Season 2, no - the show itself does not write its politics or political characters "well enough" to make me care, at all, what's going on in that half of the plot.

And I TRIED. I WANTED to not be bored, I WANTED to be engaged and enjoy it. I was engaged and enjoyed the politics/world in the video game. But that part of the show just...wasn't. To me the politics told "no real story" because it didn't make me care, about any of them. Hell, it didn't even make most of them memorable enough that I remembered anything about them (as individuals) by the time Season 3 rolled around. I remember important things in other streaming shows that are 1-2 years apart between season, but for this show, nada outside of Witcher/Ciri/Yenn/Jaskar stuff.

And since that's what I see, over and over again, in published reviews - the same criticism. I do think its the 'biggest' one of the show - regardless how "close" to the book's plotline the politics were attempting to be. They just aren't as skilled in translating "that" (from the books) to a tv-writing-medium as they are in their writing of the "main triad" family plotline.

And I too would have preferred a "monster of the week" serial show to what we got. I wouldn't necessarily have said I wanted that when the first season started. But after the last three seasons, yeah - that would work better with the current writing chops. Those "monster" episodes are all fine. I quite enjoyed all of Season 2 at Witcher-Castle and all of that related stuff. I enjoyed most of Season 1, really, once I figured out the way they were messing with time and was able to piece it together. But the episodes of Season 2 about politics just killed that positive mometum every single time, and that didn't change much with Season 3.

Now, I did enjoy that 'culmination fight' arc at the mage HQ in Season 3 (waiting since season one to get some more fun magey action) and the episodes up until that episode were 'better' overall than episodes in Season 2 because action was happening, events were 'culminating' and no longer (boringly, dryly) brewing (even if I didn't 'get' why some of that culmination was important at all lol) - so that 'end point conclusion' feel definitely helped, IMO.

But I've not watched these last two episodes because I've heard the feedback and ugg...I guess I was 'tricked' by the early news from the show that they 'respected' the send off of Cavill-Geralt and it was suppose to be 'good'. But that does not appear to be the case based on the feedback after the episode's release. So now I'm just putting it off. I"ll get there.

But my steam for giving Season 4 a try has definitely lowered (when I was fully about it before this season hit). I do still plan on giving it a chance, I have nothing against Chris H. as the Witcher, at all. But the show is really going to have to shoot-its-shot otherwise for me to continue to watch *just* For Chris As Witcher. It may not be enough to keep me going for another 10 episodes. The non-witcher centric episodes aren't getting easier for me to push through. And I hate that!

[Fabinas]

But my steam for giving Season 4 a try has definitely lowered (when I was fully about it before this season hit). I do still plan on giving it a chance, I have nothing against Liam H. as the Witcher, at all. But the show is really going to have to shoot-its-shot otherwise for me to continue to watch *just* For Liam As Witcher. It may not be enough to keep me going for another 10 episodes. The non-witcher centric episodes aren't getting easier for me to push through. And I hate that!

Fixed that for you.

[Ivanstone]

But I've not watched these last two episodes because I've heard the feedback and ugg...I guess I was 'tricked' by the early news from the show that they 'respected' the send off of Cavill-Geralt and it was suppose to be 'good'. But that does not appear to be the case based on the feedback after the episode's release. So now I'm just putting it off. I"ll get there.

I thought S3E8 was fine. Some politicking happens. Ciri ends up with a bunch of rats. Geralt, now sufficiently healed up, kicks the shit out of a bunch of assholes who needed it.

[Koriani]

Fixed that for you.

DOH! Thanks - I suck at names and just get them wrong anytime I try to use the right one =D.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought S3E8 was fine. Some politicking happens. Ciri ends up with a bunch of rats. Geralt, now sufficiently healed up, kicks the shit out of a bunch of assholes who needed it.

Well that's a better review than everyone else I've gotten one from.

I did watch Episode 7 last night, not as bad as I'd feared - it made more sense then I expected (From what people were saying as well as my own faulty memory about all the other characters), but also felt it didn't need to be its 'own whole hour'.

Last episode is up, probably be watched by next week. I'm at least looking forward to Geralt kicking ass! Always a favorite .

[loras]

Welp, finally powered through S3, and let me just say that where season 2 disappointed me but left me curious for more season 3 does not even accomplish that.

Enough reminders of what could be shone through to at least help me finish it, but general quality has declined (yes, even in comparison to previous seasons) to such an extent that more goes wrong than right and Netflix's bullshit shining through every other minute goes from mere nuisance to slaps in the face.


It's like watching a warped monster that, for two seasons, cleverly managed to imitate beloved characters, yet whose only "saving grace" is that by now they fail even at that thus allowing you to cut it down without remorse and forget it.

[Kilpi]

And now let's circle back to your original point:
Screen time affects viewership.

You presented no link at all between screen time and viewership. Just another reason for you to hate something you probably haven't even watched.

Copium indeed.

PS You don't know if Wednesday or GotG3 is good. You haven't seen them. Meanwhile I've seen Witcher S3, GotG3 and Wednesday. Witcher is better than GotG3. At least the villain in Witcher is someone who's actually dangerous and not a snivelling whiner. Wednesday is a little better than Witcher mainly because it provides a good resolution to its first season whereas Witcher leaves on a large cliffhanger.

Wth Witcher better than GotG3? Nah, Witcher has been at best mediocre from S1E1. Henry Cavill and Freya Allan are few of the only reasons why it's been viewable, altohugh I didn't even like Ciri at end of S3. No reason to keep watching when S4 starts. Sure, opinions, but still.

[Ivanstone]

Wth Witcher better than GotG3? Nah, Witcher has been at best mediocre from S1E1. Henry Cavill and Freya Allan are few of the only reasons why it's been viewable, altohugh I didn't even like Ciri at end of S3. No reason to keep watching when S4 starts. Sure, opinions, but still.

The High Evolutionary is a snivelling crybaby. The first two movies managed to skate by with weak villains but Marvel finally managed to drop a huge turd in an otherwise good movie. Easily one of the worst MCU villains.

Viglefortz on the other hand worked behind the scenes, hid his strength and exploded into the forefront by pounding the fucking shit out of Geralt. An excellent example of the Worf Effect.

[Kilpi]

The High Evolutionary is a snivelling crybaby. The first two movies managed to skate by with weak villains but Marvel finally managed to drop a huge turd in an otherwise good movie. Easily one of the worst MCU villains.

Viglefortz on the other hand worked behind the scenes, hid his strength and exploded into the forefront by pounding the fucking shit out of Geralt. An excellent example of the Worf Effect.

Sure, but the series as whole as below mid tier. Having a good villain for 1½ episodes doesn't save much. And not really sure if I agree on High Evolutionary, and tbh I didn't enjoy or not enjoy the movie because of him (also I didn't watch the movie for the villain), but same goes for Witcher.

[Ivanstone]

Sure, but the series as whole as below mid tier. Having a good villain for 1½ episodes doesn't save much. And not really sure if I agree on High Evolutionary, and tbh I didn't enjoy or not enjoy the movie because of him (also I didn't watch the movie for the villain), but same goes for Witcher.

He's not a villain for 1.5 episodes. He'll also be a malignant presence in future seasons. He was also working through his henchmen in previous seasons. Who are by themselves also better the High Evolutionary. Hell, GotG3 had mooks that were better than the High Evolutionary. Just imagine how much worse the movie would've been without Nathan Fillion?!?!?

Quality villains are what make shows better. Have your favourite heroes really done anything worthwhile without a good villain to triumph over?

[Kilpi]

He's not a villain for 1.5 episodes. He'll also be a malignant presence in future seasons. He was also working through his henchmen in previous seasons. Who are by themselves also better the High Evolutionary. Hell, GotG3 had mooks that were better than the High Evolutionary. Just imagine how much worse the movie would've been without Nathan Fillion?!?!?

Quality villains are what make shows better. Have your favourite heroes really done anything worthwhile without a good villain to triumph over?

Of course these types of shows and movies need a good villain for the heroes to thrive. I just can't understand where your hatred towards High Evolutionary comes from. Didn't realize he was that bad (or that Witcher had some especially good ones). But it's fine.

[Syegfryed]

"witcher season 3 is better than guardians of the galaxy vol 3"

lmao, that is a lot of copium, a movie with 94% audience score versus a show with 19%

[Ivanstone]

Of course these types of shows and movies need a good villain for the heroes to thrive. I just can't understand where your hatred towards High Evolutionary comes from. Didn't realize he was that bad (or that Witcher had some especially good ones). But it's fine.

I’ll compare GotG3 to Black Panther 2.

The High Evolutionary was a sucky villain that made a pretty good movie worse. I’d blame the actor but the writing might not have been there in the first place. I suppose it didn’t help that the good team effort was cribbed from Avengers 2. I honestly liked the Christmas special more.

Black Panther 2 was definitely a weaker MCU movie. However, I thought Namor was a pretty good villain in some ways. He didn’t quite behave like your normal “flying brick” and he absolutely outclassed the Wakandans. The Wakandans needed to do work to beat him. Namor’s presence made BP2 better.

Witcher certainly isn’t perfect but it at least gets a few things right. Viglefortz’s capability and manipulations were one of them.

[Kilpi]

I’ll compare GotG3 to Black Panther 2.

The High Evolutionary was a sucky villain that made a pretty good movie worse. I’d blame the actor but the writing might not have been there in the first place. I suppose it didn’t help that the good team effort was cribbed from Avengers 2. I honestly liked the Christmas special more.

Black Panther 2 was definitely a weaker MCU movie. However, I thought Namor was a pretty good villain in some ways. He didn’t quite behave like your normal “flying brick” and he absolutely outclassed the Wakandans. The Wakandans needed to do work to beat him. Namor’s presence made BP2 better.

Witcher certainly isn’t perfect but it at least gets a few things right. Viglefortz’s capability and manipulations were one of them.

Strongly disagree with pretty much all of that, but it's fine.