Witcher (Netflix)

Ryujin

Legend
I think you can. The Witchers - and certainly Geralt - generally try to stay out of it, but the situation with Ciri makes things more complicated, though.

I think it's really just important to root for Ciri, Geralt or Yennefer. (And typically, that involves rooting for all 3.) But failing that, you can always root for Jaskier.
Soooo many people are never going to root for the Bard :ROFLMAO:
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
I honestly think the show is trying to make the Witcher into a much more blandly one-dimensional hero.

By toning down what the games allow you do do, that is have the Witcher make selfish decisions, chase every skirt in sight, and ignore people that doesn't pay well enough, you lose the unique values that make the Witcherverse worth having.

As portrayed in S2, Henry Cavill is essentially playing a fantasy Superman with the same boring lack of flaws.

I cringed when he turned down Triss for example. While I'm sure many viewers like a valorous shining knight hero straight out of a Harlequin romance, the Witcher I know and like would rip off her dress and sex her right then and there; Ciri and Yen just having to become annoyed but ultimately accept him for what he is.

The way S2 is reducing the Witcher to Super-Dad that can do no wrong is just... rolls eyes
 


Stalker0

Legend
I like the reluctant father aspect and the Shakespearean type tragedy of Yen and Geralt's relationship. If you just want to see a wticher go around banging chicks and killing things play the game.
I'm curious which one is more similar to book Geralt, is he a womanizer and drinker (aka like the video game) or more the guardian hero type (aka the tv show)?
 

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I'm curious which one is more similar to book Geralt, is he a womanizer and drinker (aka like the video game) or more the guardian hero type (aka the tv show)?
Andrzej Sapkowski has been much more hands off when it comes to what those who license his work do with it. From what I've read and heard about, all he asks is to be kept informed but has never/rarely demanded or requested changes or that a certain direction be followed.

So you will find inconsistencies and different takes on the characters and lore in the various media. What you read in the books may not track 100% with what you experience in the video games, or what is shown in the TV series.

Personally, I'm fine with that. I want the games to be consistent from game to game. I want the TV series to be consistent. Etc. But I'm fine with the books, games, and TV show having different canon.

I think that the TV show has done a good job capturing the spirit of the story and the world. I'm especially happy with season two. I'm fine with the more responsible, paternal Geralt. Perhaps he was different when younger. You see a similar maturation with Vesemir in the animated film The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf.
 

I'm curious which one is more similar to book Geralt, is he a womanizer and drinker (aka like the video game) or more the guardian hero type (aka the tv show)?
It has been a while since I read the books. I think Geralt is really both. Yennefer is his big love, but there were women before and in-between, I think. Once Ciri enters his life, she really becoems important to him, and he definitely takes the guardian job seriously.

The Witcher game series underplays his guardian hero type perhaps in the first 2 games, particularly since neither Ciri nor Yennefer are part of it. But they also give him amnesia, so it stands to reason he couldn't act on it.
Witcher 1 has the weird aspect that there is basically a male version of Ciri in the story, but the relationship isn't the same and not worked out as well.
I actually think Witcher 3 did really well in giving us all the sides. Finding and saving Ciri is the primary goal of Geralt in the game, but it's of course a game, so you'll also play lots of gwent, go into brawls, and kill random monsters and bandits.
 

MarkB

Legend
I really wish I could get into the Witcher games. They're exactly the kind of open-world experience I like, but for some reason I just can't get into the combat system. I own Witcher II and III, and I've tried several times to get into them, but always end up bouncing off after a few hours' play.
 

TheSword

Legend
I honestly think the show is trying to make the Witcher into a much more blandly one-dimensional hero.

By toning down what the games allow you do do, that is have the Witcher make selfish decisions, chase every skirt in sight, and ignore people that doesn't pay well enough, you lose the unique values that make the Witcherverse worth having.

As portrayed in S2, Henry Cavill is essentially playing a fantasy Superman with the same boring lack of flaws.

I cringed when he turned down Triss for example. While I'm sure many viewers like a valorous shining knight hero straight out of a Harlequin romance, the Witcher I know and like would rip off her dress and sex her right then and there; Ciri and Yen just having to become annoyed but ultimately accept him for what he is.

The way S2 is reducing the Witcher to Super-Dad that can do no wrong is just... rolls eyes
A computer game might let you play the Witcher how you like to play him. Him not being portrayed in the series that way, but in line with the opposite choices to yours (that maybe I would take), doesnt make him 1 dimensional. It just means he isn’t a sex addled, heartless, thug for hire. 🤷🏻‍♂️

To be honest I think the constant sex because ‘his mutations’ make him that way, and a mercenary approach to every deal makes him 1D because it suggests he lacks free will or choice, or a commitment to something more than where the next Oren is coming from.
 
Last edited:

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I really wish I could get into the Witcher games. They're exactly the kind of open-world experience I like, but for some reason I just can't get into the combat system. I own Witcher II and III, and I've tried several times to get into them, but always end up bouncing off after a few hours' play.
I only completed Witcher III and really liked it. For me it was more like an interactive story. I played it on an easier mode, because mastering challenging combat mechanics is not why I play the game. I enjoy watching my son play God of War or Ghost of Tsushima, but I just get frustrated trying to play those games. When I want to get really tactical, I play turn-based games.

For me, Witcher III was one of the more immersive games I've played. There was a lot of variety and even taking on monster-hunting contracts never felt grindy to me. I actually cared about the characters and was strongly driven to learn more about the story. After completing the Witcher III, I tried to play Witcher I and II but neither grabbed me in the same way and I didn't get very far into either of them.
 

pukunui

Legend
I haven't played any of the Witcher games. By the sound of it, they're not a series that take place in chronological order (like, say, the Dragon Age games)? You don't have to have played the first two in order to understand / enjoy the third?
 

TheSword

Legend
I haven't played any of the Witcher games. By the sound of it, they're not a series that take place in chronological order (like, say, the Dragon Age games)? You don't have to have played the first two in order to understand / enjoy the third?
They are chronological and events from the first games do affect how things play out in the 3rd - Wild Hunt. However the game is very good at introducing characters in their own right. Recurring characters are introduced and established in such a way as to suggest history while still carrying the leg work of characterization in Witcher 3. I never felt like I didn’t understand who Triss Merigold or Dijkstra was.

Attempted to player Witcher 1 and 2 but to be honest they were pretty old by that point and in comparison to 3 I couldn’t get into them. Never felt a loss.
 
Last edited:

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
I haven't played any of the Witcher games. By the sound of it, they're not a series that take place in chronological order (like, say, the Dragon Age games)? You don't have to have played the first two in order to understand / enjoy the third?
I played Witcher III without having played the first two games and without having read (or even heard of) the books and I was able to easy follow the story.
 

Each game tells a story that is finished at the end of the game, and the next game starts a new story that is mostly independent of the previous one.
Some characters will return, but they will be properly reintroduced. Having played the previous games or read the novels increase your familiarity with the setting, but you won't need them to understand the game.
 

Argyle King

Legend
I think seeing Geralt struggle to parent is interesting in so much that he seems to want to correct the mistakes of his parents so as to not watch a child turn out like he did, but then he realizes that taking care of a child comes with tough choices and responsibilities which cannot easily be solved with force or magic.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Sure. Just that I didn't come to the Witcherverse for the parenting and relationship advice.

I understand many of you and perhaps many female viewers love the idea of such a dangerous man yet someone that is dependable and reliable; but to me, the core idea of the Witcher is that ultimately, he's the alpha wolf.

He's just not domesticable.

He will end up doing as he pleases, with everybody else just having to take it or leave it. And, to be clear, they (meaning chiefly Yen and Triss here seeing Ciri is underage) ultimately do take it.

Obviously that's just my 2 cents.
 

MarkB

Legend
Sure. Just that I didn't come to the Witcherverse for the parenting and relationship advice.

I understand many of you and perhaps many female viewers love the idea of such a dangerous man yet someone that is dependable and reliable; but to me, the core idea of the Witcher is that ultimately, he's the alpha wolf.

He's just not domesticable.

He will end up doing as he pleases, with everybody else just having to take it or leave it. And, to be clear, they (meaning chiefly Yen and Triss here seeing Ciri is underage) ultimately do take it.

Obviously that's just my 2 cents.
Yeah, but that's only one way that the game can be played. For many people, what you just described isn't the Witcher they know from the game either. And they can't simultaneously portray him in every way that he can possibly be portrayed in the game, so they have to pick one.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
By toning down what the games allow you do do, that is have the Witcher make selfish decisions, chase every skirt in sight, and ignore people that doesn't pay well enough, you lose the unique values that make the Witcherverse worth having.
If you haven't yet, watch the animated The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf. You will get plenty of that.

And also a bit of why Vesemir changed from that into a role model that Geralt seems to be emulating now.
 

S'mon

Legend
Just finished watching Series 2. I found it a bit underwhelming compared to #1; the BBEG arc didn't seem worth more than 2-3 episodes. There seemed to be an awful lot of sitting around talking, and not nearly as much happening as in #1. Also the Elves' sudden refusal to fight for Nilfgard seemed so suicidal it was hard to believe even such a bunch of idiots would have thought that a good idea!
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Again, if you're going to do political intrigue, you need a substantially more intricate and detailed world building than what most fantasy shows are willing to scrape together.

The point isn't to work harder at it. The point is to leave such plot lines to shows set in our own world, where you get a hundred times as much nuance for free.

Even Game of Thrones only got so far - it spent MUCH more effort (and money) on trying to convey the Stark Lannister civil war, and STILL ended up awfully vague and unexplained over and over again.

This show's efforts were just painfully vague and abstract, like some badly written fan fiction, which is especially sad when we consider that the show actually CAN be engaging and concrete, it actually CAN offer quality content - simply by focusing on a microcosmos (such as whatever village or manor the Witcher is visiting each week)
 

CapnZapp

Legend
If you haven't yet, watch the animated The Witcher: Nightmare of the Wolf. You will get plenty of that.
Animated content isn't for me. Especially "mature" fare. Tried many times. Just don't see any point in cartoon blood and nudity, I guess. It's just pixels. No stakes, no engagement.

The Disney classics are okay though, as is the best Pixar movies. They don't try to do the stuff live action shows do much better*, though.

*) when given a budget, of course. Not saying those 80's barbarian movies weren't atrocious.

I would MUCH rather have seen the animated show tackle the politics and intrigue and leave the earthy blood-spattered mature themes for the live-action show.
 
Last edited:

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top