The Witcher netflix series

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I've been reading some reactions to Season 3, especially the last 3 episodes and a lot of people are complaining about things that are basically the same as the books. People that haven't read the books are just going to have a reaction to what they see on the show, just because something was done a certain way in the books doesn't mean that it's good (or entertaining).
The book this season was mostly pulling from ends when she goes through the portal, which works as a fitting and exciting ending.
I figure the people making the show wanted to show some of what happens afterwards but to the general audience it's a bit weird that the climax of the season was episode 6 out of 8.

For me, I was much more pleased with this season (this should have been in season 2 though) but I understand that to other people they don't care if it followed the book or not.
I don't think they should have followed the books with Tissaia, I mean, I understand her fate, I just think her character should have remained on the series. They changed it to Yen forming the Lodge of Sorceresses, rather than Phillipa, so they could have easily changed Tissaia's ending.

Anyway, I liked the season overall. Will be interesting to see where it goes in future seasons.
 
What was hard to understand? I never read the books or played the game, but followed the show pretty easily.
Just all the stuff with the different kingdoms and elves and mages, and who's plotting against who or secretly working with who. And even when I could mostly follow it in the first season, it was the absolute dullest and least interesting part of the show.
 
Just all the stuff with the different kingdoms and elves and mages, and who's plotting against who or secretly working with who. And even when I could mostly follow it in the first season, it was the absolute dullest and least interesting part of the show.
Oh that's interesting. I find the mages part more interesting than the Witcher part tbh. I was so bored with season 2 at Kaer Morhen with Ciri training. I think I like the politics a lot more, similar in the vein of Game of Thrones.
 
I had no problem following the various storylines and political intrigue on GOT, but then the writing and dialogue was so much more artful on that show, and actually worth paying attention to.
 
The map in the titles for game of Thrones combined with distinct regional differences for the look of the peoples that inhabited those different places together with the varied architecture and climate of them made it so much easier to orientate yourself as a viewer. The witcher took the approach of no map and probably too much diversity in casting for a book series based on a medieval (European/Polish centric) fantasy world (I normally encourage diversity in casting but in historical movies or fantasy I think it can be to the detriment to the world building and immersion). There is also the general visual blandness in location, clothing and building design. Most places blends as one and without this distinction I had difficulty following where people were until they clumsily drop it into the dialogue, they really needed a title saying where each location was. How long it even takes to travel from place to place is never addressed and Yennifer just turns up where she needs to be from scene to scene.

In the last episode Emir had a map room and was planning his attack but they never even focused on the map to show us where everything was.

The elves don't even look like elves most of the time (I've largely been conditioned by Lord of the rings on that front) I think only the Queen and her brother stood out. They just didn't have an elven quality to them. In the last episode there was an elf who covered her ears with her hair and as a consequence I though she was a druid until she or someone else announced she was an elf. Nothing about her clothing, accent or the way she carried herself said elf. Dare I say it but even rings of power dud a better job of making their eleves have a quality about them that was not human.

When casting the witches the casting director said she wanted to challenge beauty standards. Ok but these characters are supposed to have an other worldly beauty and perfection about their appearance. Their clothing should stand out as the richest silks and materials and they arrogantly flaunt who they are. The audience and the people within the world should know who they are just on sight. Sometimes this was the case but other times I had no idea who they were and again they just blend in. Diversity in the cast of the witches makes sense as they are the few taken from all over the world but then the world itself had no regional difference in ethnicity so it doesn't even world build like it should.
 
Last edited:
The map in the titles for game of Thrones combined with distinct regional differences for the look of the peoples that inhabited those different places together with the varied architecture and climate of them made it so much easier to orientate yourself as a viewer. The witcher took the approach of no map and probably too much diversity in casting for a book series based on a medieval (European/Polish centric) fantasy world (I normally encourage diversity in casting but in historical movies or fantasy I think it can be to the detriment to the world building and immersion). There is also the general visual blandness in location, clothing and building design. Most places blends as one and without this distinction I had difficulty following where people were until they clumsily drop it into the dialogue, they really needed a title saying where each location was. How long it even takes to travel from place to place is never addressed and Yennifer just turns up where she needs to be from scene to scene.

In the last episode Emir had a map room and was planning his attack but they never even focused on the map to show us where everything was.

The elves don't even look like elves most of the time (I've largely been conditioned by Lord of the rings on that front) I think only the Queen and her brother stood out. They just didn't have an elven quality to them. In the last episode there was an elf who covered her ears with her hair and as a consequence I though she was a druid until she or someone else announced she was an elf. Nothing about her clothing, accent or the way she carried herself said elf. Dare I say it but even rings of power dud a better job of making their eleves have a quality about them that was not human.

When casting the witches the casting director said she wanted to challenge beauty standards. Ok but these characters are supposed to have an other worldly beauty and perfection about their appearance. Their clothing should stand out as the richest silks and materials and they arrogantly flaunt who they are. The audience and the people within the world should know who they are just on sight. Sometimes this was the case but other times I had no idea who they were and again they just blend in. Diversity in the cast of the witches makes sense as they are the few taken from all over the world but then the world itself had no regional difference in ethnicity so it doesn't even world build like it should.
The map isn't shown in the series, but it is on the Netflix website, where you can look up all the different locations.

Diversity casting imo is only an issue if it is changing real life people. This is a fantasy series, in a place called The Continent. I don't really consider it to be our world Medieval Europe.

The only mages they could have had different casting for imo are Fringilla, Rita and Kiera. None of those women are attractive enough. I like the rest of them though, particularly for Tissaia, Phillipa and Francesca.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230805_135258_Gallery.jpg
    Screenshot_20230805_135258_Gallery.jpg
    342 KB
I just think the simplest thing is don't pursue an adaptation of something if you don't intend to heavily draw from the source material. If the show wanted to do that they did, they could have easily just developed their own IP; it's not like Netflix is any stranger to some C-/D+ grade fantasy/sci fi that make SciFi channel originals look like pure kino.

It's as if I wanted to make a Italian sub, but changed out everything on the inside to the point where the garnish and bread are the only things reminiscent of the original recipe. They're the same only in that they are sandwiches. And I'm sure the guest who requested the Italian sub will be dissatisfied with the tuna sub, because that's absolutely not what they were expecting.

Now say I make that sandwich as requested, but instead decide to put hot peppers and a homemade dressing. Sure, I'm taking a risk that I think either A) reasonably subverts expectations for the better or B) constructively improves upon a familiar foundation. At the end of the day, it's still an Italian sub though, we're still in the ballpark of expectations here.

I will always echo that if Netflix wanted to use the Witcher as a brand name, but still do their own thing, this entire show should have launched with a season of just Geralt being...wait for it...a ******* witcher. See given that the books and games heavily draw influence from folklore, Netflix had endless resources to craft unique, monster of the week adventures that built upon the fairy tales their audience heard as children. None of this needs to contest with established lore either. Geralt hunts monsters, monsters come from folklore, audience gets cool action with twisted tales on familiar stores and plenty of deep fantasy - seems to fit the bill. I remember Netflix had some documentary where they talked about researching monsters from European stories and all the concepting they did for it, but where did that actually come to pass? Across three seasons we get about as many monsters than you can count on one hand. But, some of the best content was when we actually get to deal with a world where monsters are real, and an ethical/moral/internal debate is tied up in it. The first episode of Season 2 comes to mind as what if like to have seen this show have more of.

Having Geralt hunting monsters for coin, occasionally showing a side of compassion, stinking his nose in the world, doing the things that make him special as a character seems logical. Crazy idea, right? Plus, think about it, a monster of the week series that dips in and out of the Continent would give them a free canvas to introduce audiences to the universe and express much of the world building the show lacked.

Plus, if an audience unfamiliar to any source material gets to see Geralt shed a life of murder-for-hire and solitude and gain a family, suddenly that character arc has meaning. We give gravitas to Geralt's connection to Ciri and Yen when they finally appear, and how it changes him has a character. The work to set up this evolution makes the pay off of what the show rushed to achieve fair more impactful.

I just hope that Netflix drops the license sooner than later and someone with more finesse at crafting media gets a hold of it. Showtime weirdly comes to mind, but really any of the high end folks would probably do better with it. And bring CDPR onboard, pay them, and lift their aesthetic. Much like Peter Jackson sort of creating THE image for live action LOTR, I think CDPR basically did that for the Witcher. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.
 
I will always echo that if Netflix wanted to use the Witcher as a brand name, but still do their own thing, this entire show should have launched with a season of just Geralt being...wait for it...a ******* witcher.
POP, bingo right there. Although I will say, I rather enjoyed season 1 with the pace and time jumping to get everyone introduced. I'm in agreement though that following him as a Witcher for a season would have been glorious and welcome.
 
Back
Top