Page 88 of 102 FirstFirst ...
38
78
86
87
88
89
90
98
... LastLast
  1. #1741
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Funkenstein View Post
    No, it's 100% the storytellers' fault for it being confusing at all. Not because people aren't hyper intellectuals like you so desperately need to believe yourself to be.
    I'm specifically saying the opposite, you don't have to be big brain to realise it. They have lines that specifically point out that it has been a few years or refer to events in that timeline to show there has been a jump. You're honestly slow if you can't tell when watching that there are just 3 different stories.

    3 characters story lines, jumping EXCLUSIVELY forward in time to notable events in their lives. It's an intro season where you learn each characters backstory. and as in the books, these people have been alive a long time, we HAD to see massively different timelines.

    Again, yes they could have made it clearer, no it wasn't so bad that the avg viewer couldn't understand what was happening after enough massive in show hints were dropped.

  2. #1742
    Scarab Lord Skizzit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    ~De Geso!
    Posts
    4,013
    Wait, people were confused by the timeline stuff? I am only three episodes in and I thought it was pretty clear from the start. In the first episode there is a line of dialog from Ciri about her grandmother winning some battle when she was Ciri's age and then Renfri mentions that same battle to Geralt as if it just happened. It's pretty easy to see that Geralt's story is taking place long before Ciri's and then in episode 3 you even see the same character as an old man in Geralt's part and then as a child in Yenn's. It is also clear that both Geralt's and Yenn's are taking place over a much longer stretch of time at that point as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emerald Archer View Post
    I'm specifically saying the opposite, you don't have to be big brain to realise it. They have lines that specifically point out that it has been a few years or refer to events in that timeline to show there has been a jump. You're honestly slow if you can't tell when watching that there are just 3 different stories.

    3 characters story lines, jumping EXCLUSIVELY forward in time to notable events in their lives. It's an intro season where you learn each characters backstory. and as in the books, these people have been alive a long time, we HAD to see massively different timelines.

    Again, yes they could have made it clearer, no it wasn't so bad that the avg viewer couldn't understand what was happening after enough massive in show hints were dropped.
    You are forgetting we are living in an age where movies need put big bold letters on screen to tell the audience exactly what city/country the movie is showing and then also usually have characters say the exact same information again in dialog.

  3. #1743
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    still it doesnt change the fact that his books are very high quality . And you are definetly missing by not reading them just because you dont like persona of author.
    They aren't.

    Maybe this is a matter of opinion, obviously, but I would place his writing skills closer to John Norman than to GRRM. In fact he makes the same writing mistakes as the first ancient author mentioned:
    a) unnatural / unrealistic conversations just to cram a bunch of (sometimes irrelevant) world building into a paragraph
    b) unnatural / unrealistic conversations between characters just to cram a bunch of their background history into a scene

    The -ideas- and plotlines are good though, but the way he writes them out is very basic and not enjoyable to read.

    The claim that the books were anything special is just completely wrong. It took an obscure indie dev company to make three games about it before finally striking gold with the last one and giving the books some known prominence in the world. The books itself have been ignored in obscurity for decades for a reason...
    Last edited by Rochana; 2019-12-26 at 06:08 AM.

  4. #1744
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    They aren't.

    Maybe this is a matter of opinion, obviously, but I would place his writing skills closer to John Norman than to GRRM. In fact he makes the same writing mistakes as the first ancient author mentioned:
    a) unnatural / unrealistic conversations just to cram a bunch of (sometimes irrelevant) world building into a paragraph
    b) unnatural / unrealistic conversations between characters just to cram a bunch of their background history into a scene

    The -ideas- and plotlines are good though, but the way he writes them out is very basic and not enjoyable to read.

    The claim that the books were anything special is just completely wrong. It took an obscure indie dev company to make three games about it before finally striking gold with the last one and giving the books some known prominence in the world. The books itself have been ignored in obscurity for decades for a reason...
    that reason being that they were originally written in language other then english and published in a country other then US.

    are those books pinnacle of writing? no. but lets be honest, neither is GRRM. yes, i said it. GRRM is not this amazing writer that people claim he is. he's just pretty decent at taking inspiration from historical events and people and squishing them ever so slightly into just enough fantasy elements to call it a fantasy, but not so much as to make it unpalatable for critics that cannot stomach actual fantasy that is not ashamed of being fantasy genre fiction.

    personaly at least... i have enjoyed witcher books even in less then perfect translation far FAR more then anything from GRRM, so... /shrug.

  5. #1745
    GRRM isn't, like an AMAZING writer, but he's a very good craftsman. He writes well. He has his flaws and idiosyncrasies, but by and large, ASOIAF is the product of a long career as a writer and the expertise to tell of that journey.

    The Witcher I can only judge by the translation so I can't say if it's the same quality as in the original. But even from story structure etc. (which is largely preserved in translation) it's not that great writing. The world building is good, but the execution isn't quite top level. It's still good for your average fantasy series, don't get me wrong - there's a LOT worse out there, even among "serious" works (and not throwaway trash novels), but there's also a lot more better books.

    There is no doubt that The Witcher took off because of the video games, not because the books were particularly amazing.

    That being said, things that went wrong in the way the TV series is told are also the fault of the TV writers. They could have made sure the source material is transmitted better. I personally didn't find the time lapses too hard to follow, but I get how people might. And that's something that could have been easily remedied.

  6. #1746
    Never really cared about witcher story in the games. The setting was good, and storytelling was engaging enough, but I can take or leave the actual writing. But I have to agree, the structure of the show was unnecessarily confusing. It's obvious they wanted to pander to the fans of the third game by bringing the main 3 characters together ASAP, but I think it would of been better off if Ciri was left for a later season. I've never bothered to read the books, and I remember very little of the first game's story, so I was genuine exited to see the early Geralt's stories. Should of given up on the notion in episode one, when they've completelly changed the Blaviken events.

    But my main 3 issues were with Geralt's armor, medallion and Triss. The armor looks wrong and out of place, not even trying to be realistic. Medallion just looks cheap, lame and is never actually used as a magic detector. Yeah, I know it's a copyright thing, but they did not even try. And my problem with Triss is not that she is black, but that she is not a redhead. I take it as a personal insult. Also her character is of a motherly type, completely at odds to what we're used to. I always liked her more than Yen, and it hurts to see her like that.

    I do have other minor issues, like the scrotum armor, Yen's backstory and aims/ambitions being simplified, how fugly Siri is, and Geralt being a rather incompetent witcher. Seriously, he looses his sword in every fucking fight against monsters. Oh, and potions were always a big part of witcher's job, but here they are barely mentioned and inconsistent as fuck. I'm pretty sure they simply wanted to use the black eyes for dramatic effect, but couldn't be bothered to properly explain that aspect.

    Overall I had a rather unpleasant experience. Even when, about half way through, I tried to enjoy it as something separate, non-canon so to say, the issues kept creeping up. Season one should of been an introduction to the world, an opportunity to tell the stories rarely heard and lay down solid foundation for the crazy stuff to come. Instead it felt like what GoT would of been if season one followed John, Cersei and Daenerys, all the way to Joffrey’s death. Rushed for no reason and shallow.

  7. #1747
    Scarab Lord Skizzit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    ~De Geso!
    Posts
    4,013
    Quote Originally Posted by Echeyakee View Post

    But my main 3 issues were with Geralt's armor, medallion and Triss. The armor looks wrong and out of place, not even trying to be realistic. Medallion just looks cheap, lame and is never actually used as a magic detector. Yeah, I know it's a copyright thing, but they did not even try. And my problem with Triss is not that she is black, but that she is not a redhead. I take it as a personal insult. Also her character is of a motherly type, completely at odds to what we're used to. I always liked her more than Yen, and it hurts to see her like that.
    I have a feeling this is going to have to be constantly brought up, at least for the foreseeable future, but this series is not based on the games, it is based on the books. Triss is not a redhead in the books, she is described as having chestnut or auburn air i.e. a brownish red pretty much just like she does in the series. She is also, from what I understand as I have not read the whole series, a less important character in the books.

  8. #1748
    The show failed to illustrate exactly what a Witcher is and how someone becomes one. Right now all you know is it's some dude whose orange eyes turn black when he fights monsters, oh and he drinks potions occasionally. I would have liked to know more about the process.

  9. #1749
    Quote Originally Posted by Syegfryed View Post
    People still can see how forced diversity have the exactly opposite effect of what people want to bring, people divided, rly sad

    people get freaking out by triss more because she is more important/know to then

    both are bad indeed, but people are more familiarized, with another lv of affection, with Triss

    but the witcher books, as far i know, do describe the races/characters, the elves are not pale?

    to me black elves are not a big deal(i laughed my ass off when i saw the dude helping ciri looked like my cousin), cause ~~adaptation shenanigans~~ the race in general, was adapted to have both colors, but the named characters, like the king, should be faithful to the books
    Triss isn't that important in the books, nor is Fringilla. The witcher books describe characters, sure, but my point is that for Tolkien language and ethnography was more important than even the story. He made up a story for the world the created, so that world should be treated with more "respect" in an adaption than is necessary in a Witcher-adaption.

  10. #1750
    As a person completely new to the lore as I never played the games, the Witcher is rather confusing. Entertaining enough to come back and watch the Season 2 - but it took me 3 episodes to figure out for certain we were in a time jump between the Geralt scenes and Ciria ones - that was confusing.

    And like most video game or book worlds come to the screen, there is almost no work in helping us understand how anything works and waht most tings mean, so i guess we are missing a lot of detail.

    For example, @Echeyakee and @DarkAmbient posts above me were the first i have that the medallion detects magic and that Geralt's eyes actually go dark when fighting monsters? Watched 8 seasons and didn't notice that.

    Also how much of the lore in the film is from the game? Is it a continuation from events AFTER Witcher 3 the game? or is it telling the story in the game on the screen? Or a retelling of everything?

    Also are the 3 main characters Geralt, Yennifer and Ciria? These are the 3 characters that most scenes revolve around.

  11. #1751
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    Also how much of the lore in the film is from the game? Is it a continuation from events AFTER Witcher 3 the game? or is it telling the story in the game on the screen? Or a retelling of everything?
    No, it follows the same storyline as the books. I'm not sure exactly where or when the games pick-up on following the lore of the books, but I've always been under the impression that the games took place after the books.

    Also are the 3 main characters Geralt, Yennifer and Ciria? These are the 3 characters that most scenes revolve around.
    In the books, sort of, Geralt is always the main character to my memory, but the other two play a central part in his storylines.

  12. #1752
    Scarab Lord Skizzit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    ~De Geso!
    Posts
    4,013
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    As a person completely new to the lore as I never played the games, the Witcher is rather confusing. Entertaining enough to come back and watch the Season 2 - but it took me 3 episodes to figure out for certain we were in a time jump between the Geralt scenes and Ciria ones - that was confusing.

    And like most video game or book worlds come to the screen, there is almost no work in helping us understand how anything works and waht most tings mean, so i guess we are missing a lot of detail.

    For example, @Echeyakee and @DarkAmbient posts above me were the first i have that the medallion detects magic and that Geralt's eyes actually go dark when fighting monsters? Watched 8 seasons and didn't notice that.

    Also how much of the lore in the film is from the game? Is it a continuation from events AFTER Witcher 3 the game? or is it telling the story in the game on the screen? Or a retelling of everything?

    Also are the 3 main characters Geralt, Yennifer and Ciria? These are the 3 characters that most scenes revolve around.
    I get how people could be confused by the different time lines, but is it really that big of a deal? By the time it actually does effect the plot, it is pretty clearly spelled out.

    I guess I am just used to the way storytelling is done in lots of novels where the reader is intentionally thrown into the middle quite often with lots of names, places, and ideas tossed around and unexplained that will slowly be filled in as the story goes on. I just never felt the need to completely understand everything right from the start as I figured it would all be laid out soon enough. To me, that is more enjoyable then a ton of exposition explaining everything right off the bat.

  13. #1753
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulfric Trumpcloak View Post
    I didn't see anyone complaining about the witcher 3 because every character was white.
    There was a really popular polygon article about this.

  14. #1754
    The Lightbringer Skorpionss's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    3,851
    Quote Originally Posted by DarkAmbient View Post
    The show failed to illustrate exactly what a Witcher is and how someone becomes one. Right now all you know is it's some dude whose orange eyes turn black when he fights monsters, oh and he drinks potions occasionally. I would have liked to know more about the process.
    I think they want to reveal that when Geralt trains Ciri, so you get to learn as she does, but maybe I'll be proven wrong. That's how I'd do it at least.

  15. #1755
    Quote Originally Posted by Skizzit View Post
    I have a feeling this is going to have to be constantly brought up, at least for the foreseeable future, but this series is not based on the games, it is based on the books. Triss is not a redhead in the books, she is described as having chestnut or auburn air i.e. a brownish red pretty much just like she does in the series. She is also, from what I understand as I have not read the whole series, a less important character in the books.
    Yeah, you're probably right, but it's like Harry Potter. Rowling can make everyone retroactively gay, trans, and black, but it's the characters from the films that everyone will remember at this point.

  16. #1756
    Herald of the Titans Strawberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    2,746
    The thing that has confused me all the time, both in the game and series (haven't read the books) is that everyone is hating the witchers. The witchers according to the information online are way stronger than normal humans, can take tons of beating, are extremely dangerous and are not afraid to kill.
    It's similar to mages in the witcher world, but there are mage wards so I can understand while the witchers are immune to magic so they are more dangerous.
    So why the hell do I watch normal humans start fights with witchers, even when the human is alone? It seems like really bad writing to me.

  17. #1757
    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    The thing that has confused me all the time, both in the game and series (haven't read the books) is that everyone is hating the witchers. The witchers according to the information online are way stronger than normal humans, can take tons of beating, are extremely dangerous and are not afraid to kill.
    It's similar to mages in the witcher world, but there are mage wards so I can understand while the witchers are immune to magic so they are more dangerous.
    So why the hell do I watch normal humans start fights with witchers, even when the human is alone? It seems like really bad writing to me.
    Does human stupidity confuse you? Really?

    First of all, there aren't that many witchers, so there are very few people who actually saw one and most people just heard the stories. All stories are exaggerated one way or another - so they might not believe that witchers are lethally dangerous when provoked. They might think that - we outnumber him, we can take him. Also most of the time they are drunk.

    Bad writing would've been if Witchers were traveling around the realm and everyone made way for them, answered all their questions precisely and extremely politely, never tried to swindle or cheat them out of the payment, never cross them, etc.

    Do note that people of power who know who witchers are - are very reluctant to use force against them and allow witchers some leeway - and they are the ones who really can kill a witcher - they have armies and mages.
    All right, gentlemen, let's review. The year is 2020 - that's two-zero-two-zero, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of robed sissies.

  18. #1758
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    As a person completely new to the lore as I never played the games, the Witcher is rather confusing. Entertaining enough to come back and watch the Season 2 - but it took me 3 episodes to figure out for certain we were in a time jump between the Geralt scenes and Ciria ones - that was confusing.

    And like most video game or book worlds come to the screen, there is almost no work in helping us understand how anything works and waht most tings mean, so i guess we are missing a lot of detail.

    For example, @Echeyakee and @DarkAmbient posts above me were the first i have that the medallion detects magic and that Geralt's eyes actually go dark when fighting monsters? Watched 8 seasons and didn't notice that.

    Also how much of the lore in the film is from the game? Is it a continuation from events AFTER Witcher 3 the game? or is it telling the story in the game on the screen? Or a retelling of everything?

    Also are the 3 main characters Geralt, Yennifer and Ciria? These are the 3 characters that most scenes revolve around.
    The events of the series take place before the first game, at very much different time periods. For reference, first game takes place in 1270, the third in 1272, blood an wine (the second story dlc for the third game) in 1275.

    • Cintra is sacked in 1263 and Geralt finally meets Ciri (i.e. the end of season 1) in 1264, she is about 10 at that point.
    • The events of Blaviken don't have an exact date, but it's believed to happen before 1232. Which is the year when Dandelion (Jaskier in the series) is born. Or 3 years later, there are 2 birth dates.
    • Yen is born in 1173, she is 14 when we meet her in the series.
    • In the third game, Geralt is about 94. In the books he's about 10 years younger.

    So yeah, it's easy to see why series story is hard to follow, considering it jumps around in time decades at a time, while character barely change.
    As for the main characters, Geralt, Ciri, and Yen and the main characters of the third game, but the latter two are not mentioned as much in the first 2 games. In the books Geralt is always the main focus, other important characters are dependent on the story.

  19. #1759
    Quote Originally Posted by Echeyakee View Post
    The events of the series take place before the first game, at very much different time periods. For reference, first game takes place in 1270, the third in 1272, blood an wine (the second story dlc for the third game) in 1275.

    • Cintra is sacked in 1263 and Geralt finally meets Ciri (i.e. the end of season 1) in 1264, she is about 10 at that point.
    • The events of Blaviken don't have an exact date, but it's believed to happen before 1232. Which is the year when Dandelion (Jaskier in the series) is born. Or 3 years later, there are 2 birth dates.
    • Yen is born in 1173, she is 14 when we meet her in the series.
    • In the third game, Geralt is about 94. In the books he's about 10 years younger.

    So yeah, it's easy to see why series story is hard to follow, considering it jumps around in time decades at a time, while character barely change.
    As for the main characters, Geralt, Ciri, and Yen and the main characters of the third game, but the latter two are not mentioned as much in the first 2 games. In the books Geralt is always the main focus, other important characters are dependent on the story.
    Thanks, that's quite helpful.

    I take it if you read the books, you know what's going to happen in the TV series right?

    How do the books compare to the show? There are some films that led me to read the books (e.g. Harry Potter) and I enjoyed the many extra details and things in the books that weren't in the film - though films are cool for their visual effects and how they do some of the things that are described, there is nothing more disappointing in fantasy/sci-fi where effects can't match the description in the books, and they mst match them for the target audience.. fo exa,ple, if you were to say somethingwas legendary beautifully or advanced, you would have to actually give something amazing enough to impressour audience of today rather than something that would have in theory impressed a medieval person.. and they don't always succeed.

  20. #1760
    Quote Originally Posted by ravenmoon View Post
    Thanks, that's quite helpful.

    I take it if you read the books, you know what's going to happen in the TV series right?

    How do the books compare to the show? There are some films that led me to read the books (e.g. Harry Potter) and I enjoyed the many extra details and things in the books that weren't in the film - though films are cool for their visual effects and how they do some of the things that are described, there is nothing more disappointing in fantasy/sci-fi where effects can't match the description in the books, and they mst match them for the target audience.. fo exa,ple, if you were to say somethingwas legendary beautifully or advanced, you would have to actually give something amazing enough to impressour audience of today rather than something that would have in theory impressed a medieval person.. and they don't always succeed.
    Can't really say, never read the books. I will say that the game's biggest strength, apart from just being a well made game, is the setting. The eastern European heritage, mixing with Slavic folklore makes for a unique perspective and visuals. Like how Nilfgard is meant to be HRE, while the north is very much free cities and minor kigdoms. Unfortunately the series fail to leverage that in any way. The world felt like a generic fantasy central Europe.

    Having actually visited pretty much every region between Baltic and Black sea, the game always managed to deliver "Oh, I feel like I've been here" moments. That never happened in the series.
    Last edited by Echeyakee; 2019-12-26 at 03:52 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •