^ The games are set after the books. My understanding is that the book series does end in a conclusion (which I think is covered in the intro fo Witcher 2) and the games are a bit of an "unnecessary" continuation and aren't canon, if that matters. I enjoyed the series. I liked the characters and the world, but I already did from the games. On the differences between the two it didn't bother me, not that I really thought things like Triss not being an American redhead would. I liked the performances, the action, and I stayed up way too late to finish it off. It has its issues. I think some people aren't going to like the way the story is told. Adapting a bunch of short stories does mean it doesn't quite have the same sotry cohesion that you get when you adapt a novel. Maybe there wasn't enough payoff by the end of the season in terms of how much setting up they did, but maybe I notice it more because I have an idea of what's to come as well. The CGI also is a bit more obvious in certain places. Looking forward to the next season.
Just finished it and i liked it as a total newcomer to Witcher (never have played the games though i knew of them and that they're supposedly very good nor have i read the books). I was a bit confused by the story structure until halfway through the show when it was made clear that the characters were at first in different time periods which also begs the question if Mages age much slower (at one point Yennifer mentions she's been in service for 30 years at court yet she still looks like a 20 something woman). For Witchers with their alchemically and magically altered bodies i can accept this. It was also hard to track and understand all the things that were happening and the customs that played a big part like the Law if Surprise and others, the show didn't really explain this well and it added to the confusion which was already a bit high due to the non-linear storytelling. It may also have been bias on my side but at times the show really felt like an RPG game, with individual episodes being side quests in the overarching story that introduces cool characters only to be done with them by the end of the episode and then off to the next. That being said i still liked it but it's hard for me not to like any halfway well made Fantasy show or movie that puts some effort in it, Cavill killed it as the mutant monster hunter and the rest of the cast was good too so i'm looking forward to season 2. The show also made me finally buy the Witcher game series, it was only like 12 Euro for all 3 games on Steam
Well for me, I really didn't like the combat in the first, but eventually got around to buying the third (which I loved). - I'm now working my way through the second. However, I'd say if you couldn't get far in the second, I'd possibly not bother with the third. As for the series, I'm about half way through now and think it's decent. Has anyone else seen the polish version?
So is this an actual adaptation of the short stories and novels, or does it just take ideas and characters and do its own thing?
I've only played (but not finished yet) Witcher 3 and I binged the show Saturday/Sunday. I couldn't stop watching it. True, some of it was a bit confusing with the customs and laws but I figured out the timeframe aspect early on when 2 of adult characters we saw the episode prior were suddenly children the next episode. It was great when everything synced up which revealed some surprises and the ending only leaves me with wanting more!
For this first season is adaptations of short stories that lead into the first proper Witcher novel, which I assume will be the basis of the second season.
I don't think this is quite right. The Geralt POV stories are adapted from the short stories, which is why that aspect of every episode seems semi-episodic. But the Ciri and Yennifer POV stories I believe were yoinked out of the later novels, which is why they are much more serialized. To simplify Yennifer's story started around 70 years before the present. Geralt's story (minus flashbacks to childhood) began 25-30 years before the present. Ciri's story began in the present. Witchers and magic users do not age in this canon, but I do think in a few places they could have done more to age up/down other characters appearing decades apart in the timeline.
My knowledge of this is purely based on what I've read about the production of the show rather than actually having read the written works, so I am probably a bit off.
I realized that there are different timelines going on in the third episode. I think that they structured the show pretty well. If we are comparing, I'm getting more Hercules/Xena vibes from the show than for example GOT. Which is good.
Just finished it up. Wife and I did a binge through it. Thoroughly confusing, disgusting and brutal show. Compliments to the stunt and effects team to be sure. Geralt is the most interesting, but Yennerer is tiresome, though understandable, (until the end). There is a lot of different political bits that have some intrigue, and the concept of magic is very interesting to me. I still have no idea what to make of this show.
I tried, but ultimately this just didn't land for me. I'm wondering if anyone has seen Zero Punctuation's review of Witcher 3? There's one part that I didn't find was a huge problem in the game but did come back to a few times watching the show. I know people don't like it when YouTube videos are linked, so here's the relevant quote: 'Gerald is a master swordsman, but can do magic as well, in a cool casual off-handy kind of way, not like how all those nerd mages twat about with it. But his lot is a tragic one, as he is shunned by ignorant society because he had to undergo mutation to make himself really good at everything. Even though his only visible mutation is a pair of cool scary eyes, rather than anything disfiguring that might prevent him from macking on all the ladies who will want his beautiful white hair cascading over their hot titties like the foamy fast-flowing mountain stream it resembles. Also, big muscles. There's something terribly wanky about all this. Gerald is one secret makeout with Harry Potter away from being a self-insert fan fiction character.' I felt this was a problem more in the show since he was played by Henry 'Perfect Bone Structure' Cavill and because they really played up the 'shunned by an ignorant society' thing.
Just saw episode three. I have read almost all the novels and have player the Witcher 3, the casting, soundtrack, and environment are almost perfect, so good! And Cavil is perfect as Geralt, his voice his movement. Only nitpick is that I don't like the look of Triss, and the change of jaskiers/ Dandelion's name
I thought his acting was fine but his look was wrong. He's more or less the epitome of conventionally handsome, but he also has an oddly modern look. Wish they'd gone for an actor with a little something unusual about him.
Buttercup actually. But since word "buttercup" can mean other things in english the name was changed. For some reason the name was translated to Valvatti in finnish. Which, while being a small yellow flower, is not same as the buttercup/jaskier flower. I guess Valvatti is just a better name for a bard.
*Insert "Princess Bride" reference here* I have no issue with it, since Jaskier is just a translation to the other word from Polish. But, I also haven't read the books either so... My wife is rewatching it, and there is a definite easier time after going through the first watch. But, it is all and all a very unpleasant world and not something I enjoy revisiting. Henry Cavil is probably the highlight for me, but seeing Yennefer's transformation was quite impressive. I didn't realize how use to her transformed self I become over the last half. Again, well done series, but the dark tone makes me less likely to run back to revisit it.
I too was initially confused with the timeline. Queen Calanthe died in an earlier episode only to have her appear in the next, with her daughter still alive. Ah, a flashback, I thought, but why was Jaskier in the story? It turned out we were seeing Geralt's past leading up to Cirilla's present. Overall, it was a very good series. I like Henry Cavill as an actor. At times, I felt like he was channeling Mick Rory from Legends of Tomorrow. Too anticlimactic for a finale. It would've been better if they had made more than eight episodes and wrapped up the Nilfgaard (?) plot, and then moved on the second season.
Great article here, though I don’t quite agree with the writer’s position regarding the relative merits of The Witcher and Game Of Thrones: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2020/01/the-witcher-is-absurd-thats-why- I’ve played The Witcher 3 and its expansions for about 194* hours according to Steam. Have read one or two of the books and watched the first five episodes so far. Quite good overall, even if it was all a bit Hercules and Iolaus. But episode five did rub me up the wrong way (no pun intended). The actors seemed to be merely reciting their dialogue and there seemed to be a distinct lack of chemistry. Still, looking forward to the final three. (* Edit: I misremembered. It was more like 257 hours.)
I adore the show so far even with the differences from the books. I just love it as it FEELS authentic. I really hope that they move from the books to the games. If they do they have enough story to last 7+ seasons and end with the wild hunt- an epic conclusion to what I consider the best video game of all time. I have put close to 400 hours into 2 play throughs.