The Witcher TV series
-
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:58 pm
- Been Liked: 970 times
- Has Liked: 232 times
The Witcher TV series
I played the second game and enjoyed it a bit. Too late for the first, didn't want to spend £60 or whatever for the 3rd (do you still die if your horse goes into water?) So I'm not committed to the series.
Anyway, when I saw Superman had been cast as Geralt I had my doubts, and I still haven't seen it, but it's right up my street as far as fantasy TV (television) goes. I've seen the trailers and Superman still grates. Maybe because Game of Thrones (and even Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit to be fair) got the casting so right.
So, be it good?
Anyway, when I saw Superman had been cast as Geralt I had my doubts, and I still haven't seen it, but it's right up my street as far as fantasy TV (television) goes. I've seen the trailers and Superman still grates. Maybe because Game of Thrones (and even Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit to be fair) got the casting so right.
So, be it good?
-
- Posts: 30278
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 10917 times
- Has Liked: 5594 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: The Witcher TV series
watched the first 2 last night as the Mrs wanted to watch it, barely kept my attention unlike G.O.T. I'll give it a few more episodes to see if anything happens before I make an abandonment decision !
-
- Posts: 4239
- Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:30 pm
- Been Liked: 1016 times
- Has Liked: 1485 times
Re: The Witcher TV series
Literally just talking about this with my brother.
I'll get it binged in a day or two next week.
Not watched any yet, he says the first season is kinda meh but should get better.
I'll get it binged in a day or two next week.
Not watched any yet, he says the first season is kinda meh but should get better.
Re: The Witcher TV series
I've never taken to Cavill in anything he's ever done but I personally think he's brilliantly cast as Geralt. It's okay. Not great, not terrible. Definitely high fantasy and all the pitfalls that come with it, not like the low fantasy that made GoT brilliant. Thrones removed some of the fantasy elements in the books to focus more on the politics, and even subtle things like the colour of Daenerys' eyes (purple in the books) were changed for the better, whereas The Witcher TV series is going all-in on high fantasy. Haven't finished S1 yet but so far the overarching story seems to take a back seat to a 'quest' like plot in each episode. There was talk that it could go on as long as 7 seasons which...erm...doesn't bear thinking about. Some of the dialogue is bloody atrocious, derivative and cliched etc etc. There's far too much exposition in episode 1 and I tuned out for a good ten minutes because of it, but if you can get over some of those things it's decent fun if you've played the games. I was hoping better for it, though.
-
- Posts: 415
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:40 pm
- Been Liked: 194 times
- Has Liked: 78 times
Re: The Witcher TV series
. did not enjoy the first season of this show. He found it all over the place.
-
- Posts: 2443
- Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:58 pm
- Been Liked: 970 times
- Has Liked: 232 times
Re: The Witcher TV series
Educate me on the difference between low and high fantasy, please.Spiral wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:04 pmI've never taken to Cavill in anything he's ever done but I personally think he's brilliantly cast as Geralt. It's okay. Not great, not terrible. Definitely high fantasy and all the pitfalls that come with it, not like the low fantasy that made GoT brilliant. Thrones removed some of the fantasy elements in the books to focus more on the politics, and even subtle things like the colour of Daenerys' eyes (purple in the books) were changed for the better, whereas The Witcher TV series is going all-in on high fantasy. Haven't finished S1 yet but so far the overarching story seems to take a back seat to a 'quest' like plot in each episode. There was talk that it could go on as long as 7 seasons which...erm...doesn't bear thinking about. Some of the dialogue is bloody atrocious, derivative and cliched etc etc. There's far too much exposition in episode 1 and I tuned out for a good ten minutes because of it, but if you can get over some of those things it's decent fun if you've played the games. I was hoping better for it, though.
I mean, GoT had the undead, and it had spell casters....I know there were no wizards throwing fireballs but...you sound like you know more about this than I do.
-
- Posts: 9248
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:48 pm
- Been Liked: 4071 times
- Has Liked: 6538 times
- Location: Burnley
Re: The Witcher TV series
Weak I thought.
Won’t be bothering with anymore. All those other programmes mentioned smash this all over the place.
Won’t be bothering with anymore. All those other programmes mentioned smash this all over the place.
-
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:36 pm
- Been Liked: 559 times
- Has Liked: 142 times
- Location: the ghost in the atom
Re: The Witcher TV series
watched the all series, it grows on you as characterisations build, the mixed timelines need a bit of getting use to but enjoyed it
Re: The Witcher TV series
The witcher 3 is the best game ive ever played on
Re: The Witcher TV series
Not that I'd claim to be particularly knowledgeable, but to clarify my comment above, it's the low-fantasy elements that made GoT brilliant, not that 'GoT is low-fantasy, therefore brilliant', as it might have come across. I'd argue GoT could have been better without dragons. Honestly. The very best that show has to offer revolves around politics, betrayal, power, lust, etc, and because it's a grimdark series, hopelessness, viciousness, unfairness and cruelness. The magical elements perhaps embellish those themes and make the world more escapist, but essentially dragons are nukes, the Night King is a 'common enemy against which all must unite', and Daenerys' cult-like leadership abilities could have existed by writing her with more natural charisma, rather than immunity to fire and birthing dragons. If you look at the highest rated episodes on IMDB for GoT, with the exception of Hardhome (basically, Dunkirk), the more fantastical elements of the show had a much lesser bearing - sometimes none at all - on those high points in story than someone who had only seen trailers for the show might otherwise think. Sept of Baelor explosion; Ned's fate in season 1; Red Wedding; Joffrey's wedding and the events that followed; Battle of the B@stards, very few fantastical elements involved. A fantasy world, analogous to medieval Britain, but largely grounded in 'our' experiences. But unlike GoT, the more fantastical elements are front and centre in The Witcher. There's literally a Hogwarts style wizard school. (Painfully boring episode, that one). Geralt is defined by his supernatural abilities. Demons are largely thought to be a fiction in the world of GoT (few people believing Brienne's account of how Renly died, for instance) whereas in TW, like in LOTR, it's a fact of life. The distinction between high fantasy and low fantasy, to my mind, is in how much of a bearing magic/fantastical concepts has on the world, not necessarily the existence of it. The more grounded a fantasy world is in 'our' reality, the less time spent on exposition explaining away fantastical concepts, and the more time spent on world, character and thematic development. While it all comes down to personal preference, (and indeed, while one isn't inherently better than the other), high fantasy, by design, tends to spend lots of time explaining itself and often (but not always), as a way of expediting the plot, falls back on tropes and genre shorthand developed by Tolkien which are rooted in the folklore, religious allegories and fairytales which inspired him. Magical forests, heroism, clear distinction between good and evil etc. The problem with that is you've seen it all before. Low fantasy tends to let magic exist, but just on the back seat, and is arguably more concerned with the pain of its characters than its world's vistas and forces. Aaaaaaaand breathe. I won't launch into a treatise on heroic fantasy vs grimdark, I'm not that cruel!duncandisorderly wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:25 pmEducate me on the difference between low and high fantasy, please.
I mean, GoT had the undead, and it had spell casters....I know there were no wizards throwing fireballs but...you sound like you know more about this than I do.
-
- Posts: 1009
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:55 pm
- Been Liked: 308 times
- Has Liked: 350 times
Re: The Witcher TV series
I thought it was excellent, and for a first series it really could grow into a juggernaut of a show!
This user liked this post: Claret-On-A-T-Rex
-
- Been Liked: 1 time
- Has Liked: 826 times
-
- Been Liked: 1 time
- Has Liked: 826 times
Re: The Witcher TV series
Witcher 3 is a masterpiece and very different to Witcher 2.duncandisorderly wrote: ↑Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:42 pmI played the second game and enjoyed it a bit. Too late for the first, didn't want to spend £60 or whatever for the 3rd (do you still die if your horse goes into water?) So I'm not committed to the series.
Anyway, when I saw Superman had been cast as Geralt I had my doubts, and I still haven't seen it, but it's right up my street as far as fantasy TV (television) goes. I've seen the trailers and Superman still grates. Maybe because Game of Thrones (and even Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit to be fair) got the casting so right.
So, be it good?
The new series, "The Yennifer" is great, somebody did say that Superman might be knocking about in the background but I didn't notice him.
Re: The Witcher TV series
Slow start but I really enjoyed it in the end. Episode 8 (I think) is really confusing as it repeats a lot of the first episode. Still not sure what was going on there.