The Witcher – Netflix SPOILER discussion

Topic

I haven’t watched it yet, but lots of people have so please, keep your spoilers in here?

And tag them by episode if you can, for those dipping into the show and not binging it.

 

 

Replies

The fractured chronology didn’t work for me, would have better with some indicators.

Can someone move the posts on the other thread to here? Thanks! =)

Only if you pay for it – Witcher thread, Witcher rules

Toss a coin to your Witcher, oh Carrier of plenty

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve played the games so I know the general narrative. I’m only on episode 4 but it became clear to me the stories were not concurrent when we first meet Yennifer in episode 2.

I’m not sure if it’s meant to be a reveal, is it? More just a structure you pick up

Yeah no, I don’t think it’s meant to be a reveal, but if you’re coming in fresh, it also works as a plot twist of sorts, but it doesn’t feel like it’s forced, so that’s why I enjoyed it as opposed to something like Westworld where the different timelines are basically the whole show.
 
There’s a good short interview with the show runner where she explains the reasons for what she did and how Dunkirk basically gave her the answer she was looking for (middle of the video)…
 

 
Oh also, I just love how much of a gigantic geek Cavill is… That’s why I really like him as Superman and why he’s perfect as Geralt, he REALLY loves those characters, and it shows.

Im told the books have considerably more banging then the show but i am still enjoying the show for its banging

there’s not as much as I thought there’d be… I even heard a youtuber complaining about how much female nudity there is, but it’s not that much, and Cavill gets a lot of nudity too… mind you, no genitals usually, just boobs and manboobs, although there’s a couple of female genitals in a couple of episodes if you really squint for it (they’re rather blurred)… GoT level of nudity it’s not… but for a franchise that is known for it’s liberal depiction of sex, I was a bit disappointed, tbh…

I think the sexual content is pretty much what I’d expect from a show in the post-GoT era. It’s not wall-to-wall but it’s fairly regular and doesn’t always manage to escape feeling gratuitous.

But it’s not off-putting either, and I think there’s nothing wrong with audiences enjoying watching beautiful people in various states of undress (both male and female) in an adult show like this, as long as it doesn’t detract from the rest of what makes the show fun.

I liked that they showed Yenefer naked pre-tranformation… that’s not something you see often… I mean, she’s still quite pretty deformities and all, but hey, A for effort at least… xD

Finished the final episode off tonight. I thoroughly enjoyed the series and I’ll look forward to more. I was surprised they left it on such an unresolved moment but it’s nice to have a decent lead-in to next series.

At first I thought it was odd to have a final episode that shifted the focus off the Witcher himself so much, but I think that the series actually shares the lead pretty evenly between the three main characters, so it doesn’t just feel like ‘his’ show. Yennefer is probably the standout for me, I’ve really enjoyed her path this series.

Dave wrote:

I think the sexual content is pretty much what I’d expect from a show in the post-GoT era. It’s not wall-to-wall but it’s fairly regular and doesn’t always manage to escape feeling gratuitous.

But it’s not off-putting either, and I think there’s nothing wrong with audiences enjoying watching beautiful people in various states of undress (both male and female) in an adult show like this, as long as it doesn’t detract from the rest of what makes the show fun.

To be fair that’s pretty much how the games are too.

Another thing I appreciated about the show is that it was episodic in quite an old-fashioned way. Rather than one long meandering story chopped up into hourlong slices, it felt like each episode gave a fairly complete experience with overarching story elements connecting them all. Which helped to offer a decent amount of variety across the eight episodes.

Yeah I read that the first book is actually a collection of short stories, so very much episodic… I guess that was the easiest part to adapt… But speaking of that, I also liked it, because Geralt’s plot thread is completely episodic, while Ciri’s plot thread is just one long story, and Yenefer is kind of a bit of both I found, so that made for an interesting structure, combined with the 3 different time lines. I was very pleasantly surprised with the writting on this show for sure. I really hope the show takes off with people… at least it has the benefit of being the last premium show of the year… in a loooooooooooooooooooooong list of premium shows this year… dude, this year tho… TV killed it.

The narrative they draw on is pretty interesting.  Im told the first half of books are short stories in the vein of Sherlock Holmes – Gerald gets an assignment and does it.

The second set builds the story of Ciri Yennifer.  It’s one of the reasons for the love triangle in the games because the short ‘cases’ had Triss as a recurring love interest while when the narrative gained form Yennefer became the love interest.

Just a wee review from Grand Master Michael Moorcock, who some have felt the Witcher is derivative:

Well, if it’s a rip then it’s the blandest rip ever. Binge watching Witcher is like binge eating vanilla blancmange. An insult to Elric!!

followed by a few laughing-devil emojis.

 

They’re absolutely nothing alike aside from the protagonists both having white hair and being nicknamed white wolf.

I haven’t read the Witcher books but I Have read the first book of the Elric saga a( I think its Elric of wherever) and I thought it was hugely derivative of Tolkien.  Then I read that he’d never read Tolkien and I thought “What a load of bullshit”.

Anonymous wrote:

I haven’t read the Witcher books but I Have read the first book of the Elric saga a( I think its Elric of wherever) and I thought it was hugely derivative of Tolkien.  Then I read that he’d never read Tolkien and I thought “What a load of bullshit”.

It would be strange for a writer in that period not having familiarity with Tolkien. However, not entirely inconceivable. I’m sure he knew about it and knew the stories, but it’s true many people then could easily get away with acting like they read it but hadn’t.

Elric was intended much more as an answer to Robert E Howard though, than Tolkien. Replacing the straightforward, dark barbaric warrior with a sickly, Machiavellian effete albino who was happy to use magic. It fit in with other fantasy writers at the time like Ursula LeGuin and Roger Zalazny.

I have no idea whether Moorcock had read Tolkien or not, but if he did then I find no evidence of it in his work. I’m a bit baffled that anyone would think it was at all similar. Robert E. Howard, yes, that’s blatant and obvious. But Tolkien?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Chris-S

DavidM wrote:

I have no idea whether Moorcock had read Tolkien or not, but if he did then I find no evidence of it in his work. I’m a bit baffled that anyone would think it was at all similar. Robert E. Howard, yes, that’s blatant and obvious. But Tolkien?

I think most collections of Elric generally print the stories not in the order they were published but in the order they take place in Elric’s life to give them much more of a chronological development that better resembles something like Lord of the Rings, but yeah, if Tolkein had any influence on Moorcock, it wasn’t very pronounced and generally negative. Since he’s written on how infantile the Lord of the Rings actually is, I have to believe he was very aware of the Middle Earth (and Narnia) books even if he hadn’t spent much time reading any.

Today, it’s going to be obvious to set Moorcock against Tolkien even though his work wasn’t as directly in opposition to Lord of the Rings as Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire (GOT) obviously is. Though Conan in movies (and maybe comics) is well remembered, Howard is not nearly as well-read popularly though obviously many of the popular fantasy writers today certainly are just as influenced by his work and work, like Moorcock’s, that came out of that influence as they are by Tolkien.

DavidM wrote:

I have no idea whether Moorcock had read Tolkien or not, but if he did then I find no evidence of it in his work. I’m a bit baffled that anyone would think it was at all similar. Robert E. Howard, yes, that’s blatant and obvious. But Tolkien?

Have you read The Children of Hurin?

Mike read Tolkien, interviewed Tolkien, did not very much like Tolkien. Absolutely hates Heinlein. I see very little similarity between the three.  As said, he considered Witcher a bit of fluff, not quite derivative.  Mike is, to this day, very specific about who wrote what and what so-and-so might have said about it. If I had a memory like that, I would brain better!

 

Mike told me that he secretly copied Tolkien and Stormbringer is just a lift of the One Ring.

He said he wrote ‘Epic Pooh’ out if guilt.

He also said Tim is the most handsomest and bestest person on the board so he HAS to be right!

He was talking about Tim Allen.

Isn’t Tim Allen a half-human half-republican monster who eats children, these days?

And you picked him over me, Mike?

Pretty sure that’s what he’s always been.

For a spoiler free intro to The Witcher. Naturally, more people here (and honestly probably in the whole world) are more familiar with the games than the books.

Witcher 3 is incredible and one of the best games ever made, and that’s a large part due to the story-telling and the world building.

The TV show is not as good as the game.

I think trying to use different timelines in the story telling and introducing newbies like myself to this world has made it super convoluted.

We got to episode 4 and figured out what was going on but there isn’t clear enough definition from the time lines to make it clear. The missus has lost interest completely.

The HD glossy Netflix look isn’t great. You can pick apart cgi quite easily and the establishing shots are scattered and not up front.

The entirety  of episode one looks like its shot in a sound stage.

I want to like it. But I don’t.

We originally thought it was an anthology series with the story of Gerald being the through line and potentially it all coming together for the last episode. This would of been a much cleaner way to introduce it.

I‘m unsure where these stats of it being Netflix’s most watched show are coming from. Perhaps it was launched in a lull of releases.

 

 

It’s a common complaint I’m reading: that the non linear narrative is confusing.

It made sense to me, but only because for example I knew

[Spoiler] Geralt and Yennefer don’t age and are roughly a century old when Ciri is born.  Yennifer, Triss, Geralt and their histories. Who Ciri is and importantly WHAT she is. And, most importantly, that the story is a thinly veiled excuse to which ensure lots of banging occurs. [/spoiler]

I would expect Season 2 would be more accessible if only because Season 1 more or less ends where the actual story begins, in the same way Season 1 of the Preacher TV show did.

I’m a newcomer to the story and the chronology stuff was perfectly clear to me (once the show started to give you the information you needed), and actually added intrigue early on in terms of piecing it together.

I think it helps though that we watched the first five episodes in a 24-hour period – it made it easier to see those links than it might be for someone watching an episode at a time.

Mark Abnett wrote:

I‘m unsure where these stats of it being Netflix’s most watched show are coming from. Perhaps it was launched in a lull of releases.

Launching at the start of a holiday period when people want to spend time sitting around watching TV probably helps.

It’s not just on the board. A couple of posts on my social media are to the effect of “Henry Cahill solo hot but what is going on with this show?” Followed by love hearts and cat emojis etc

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not just on the board. A couple of posts on my social media are to the effect of “Henry Cahill solo hot but what is going on with this show?” Followed by love hearts and cat emojis etc

And did you get any replies?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Chris-S

I enjoy the show and the reveal that scenes are taking place at different periods was a nice reversal.

however, the dragon episode (6 or 7) just was mostly filler and made no damn sense at all. It was funny but kinda dumb.

That was probably the weakest episode. Even then though it was enjoyably silly rather than just outright dumb.

Actually it was episode 4 or so that confused me… at first I thought we were seeing the same time period for everyone, so it wasn’t confusing at first… it’s when I reached the magic gala ball thingie that I was “wait wtf”, and then I understood what was happening… I was (and still am) confused as to how much time time passed in certain jumps for both Geralt and Yenefer, but it’s not that important in the end… My only worry was that Geralt and Yenefer wouldn’t cross paths until season finale/next season but fortunately that wasn’t the case.

Dave wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not just on the board. A couple of posts on my social media are to the effect of “Henry Cahill solo hot but what is going on with this show?” Followed by love hearts and cat emojis etc

And did you get any replies?

You are funny. 10 funny points to Dave

Jon wrote:

Actually it was episode 4 or so that confused me… at first I thought we were seeing the same time period for everyone, so it wasn’t confusing at first… it’s when I reached the magic gala ball thingie that I was “wait wtf”, and then I understood what was happening…

It was the second episode that clued me in that something must be going on, given how much time was passing in Yennefer’s story compared to the Witcher’s.

They kept you guessing with certain timeline details and twists though, like revealing that Geralt (I always want to call him Gerald, which is much less imposing) was jailed at the castle during the siege.

It looks very expensive, but not quite ‘GoTs’ expensive.

Things I like; the cast and the humour. It’s quite sarcastic and cynical in places and it works.

Things I don’t like; playing around with the chronology. Just tell the bloody story. I wish show runners would stop trying to be so bloody clever.

Also; it reminded me how confusing a new fantasy world can be when it’s really new to you. I can’t remember anyone’s name. Or anywhere’s.

I’m finding it very hard to care about who lives and who dies because they’re all strangers to me and I don’t know what’s actually at stake yet? All the sad music in the world won’t actually move me if I don’t know the characters. Who’s good, who’s bad, who’s complicated?

Which side, in the world as we’re seeing it, is the lesser evil?

Hopping about like this keeps things moving, but it’s also confusing.

Spoilers for where I expect the story to go, which answers some of Steve’s questions.

There isn’t really a clear “goody” or “baddy” country. Nilfgaard are sort of positioned that way but the story leans heavily into the idea that politics is bullshit and none of the countries are represented well, except, arguably Skellige and even then there’s a lot of turmoil there.

It’s not like Game of Thrones where the wars between the kingdoms are the main thrust of the narrative.  It’s far more a backdrop and there’s a really clear evil threat that will become apparent (probably around season 3  or 4 is my guess because there’s still a boat load of setting up to do).  The Geralt (and Yennefer and Ciri’s) thesis is kind of “the universe is bigger than you can conceived so don’t get bogged down in the petty squabblings of nobles” and that’s really reflected in the story

Yeah, after Game of Thrones I think it’ll be a few more years before we get a ‘King Arthur’ type story that offers a fairytale Camelot with noble and worthy aristocrats who should be followed by the rest of us.

My point was that the the politics is not the main thrust of the narrative

Did you make that point in the sentence where you said? It’s not like Game of Thrones where the wars between the kingdoms are the main thrust of the narrative. 

That must’ve gone over my head.

My point was something else, but I went over my own head there.

Yes

EDIT: Sorry Steve, that probably came across as unnecessarily rude.  As we would say in the law: it appears we are speaking at cross-purposes.

SteveUK wrote:

Also; it reminded me how confusing a new fantasy world can be when it’s really new to you. I can’t remember anyone’s name. Or anywhere’s.

Very true. Half the time, I’m trying to remember what the kingdoms are and how they relate to each other. I was completely lost in that wizard’s council where they were talking about where to send their graduating class. They mentioned that Yennefer was from some such place, and I couldn’t recall her home kingdom ever being mentioned.

Also, some events just happen in a weird order. Like Yennefer portals into the cavern where she meets hot wizard archeologist and he acts like he doesn’t want her captured by some witch and sends her back home. Then in her very next scene that witch shows up at her house and takes her back to where she had portalled originally. I was thinking… “why didn’t he just let her be taken then instead of all the trouble she had to go through to end up in exactly the same position?” Nothing comes of it as he’s not punished for it and it changes nothing for her.

It’s not necessary to tell the story in chronological order, but streamlining out a few scenes that don’t make a damn difference could help.

She’s from Vengerberg which isn’t actually visited in the show but it’s capital city, Aedern, is mentioned a couple of times.  Geralt is from Rivia which also isn’t visited.  We go to Kaer Moerhen which is the home of the Witchers briefly and Aretuza which is where the Sorceress lodge is (where Yennefer trains).

Tbe main city in the show is Cintra which is where Ciri is from. Cintra is part of the Norther Kingdoms which consist of Cintra, Temeria, Kaedwan, Radania and Aedern. Apart from that no where else is significant and they’re just forgettable townships that don’t have any political purpose – Temeria is where the striga is, Blavikin is the town in the first episode where Geralt earns the nickname “The Butcher of Blavikin”.  Nilfgaard are the expansionist army featured in the first and last episodes but the show never spends anytime in Nilfgaard.

The world isn’t as distinct as Game of Thrones for example.  It draws mostly from the dark ages so the terrain is mostly small townships.  Cintra is the big capital (America) and Nilfgaard is the southern opposite (Russia) but they’re not really that visually distinct I don’t think. Nilfgaard is meant to have a ton of golden towers though.  Skellige is the only other major kingdom that will probably come into play, which is an island full of kind of Norsemen types.  There’s also Toussaint, in Nilfgaard, which is like a french land with vineyards, Novigrad/Drakenborg which is the capital city of Redania and Visima which is a city in Temeria (these are all relatively insignificant places in the story).

Once you learn about the world there really isn’t that much to keep track of in terms of locations.  There’s ALOT on any map you might see but there’s only maybe 10 significant places in the overall narrative.  Significantly less than Game of Thrones.

Look, I don’t think I disagree with any of the complaints here. I really love the world and the game is very special so the show was a nice companion piece.  I think it’s clear that it doesn’t make much sense unless you have a passing familiarity with the world, have played one of the games, or read one or two of the short stories.

On it’s own, as an individual show,  there’s been enough criticism to indicate to me that it does not stand on its own.

I haven’t played the games or read the books and I thought it was fine… all the same critisisms about names and places I could say the same of GoT seasons 1 & 2… It’s normal…

I didn’t know Thrones before I watched it, I got the basics because they were pretty simple. Seven Kingdoms, one throne occupied by a lazy drunk king and scheming people vying for power at the earliest opportunity, plus something supernatural in the icy north.

So I’ll watch a couple more episodes later and see if some of this starts to gel better for me? If not, it’s a time of peak TV and I’ll find something else.

All finished now.

Didn’t mind it by the end of it.

Will watch season 2 but for my money The Dragon Prince is the best fantasy story on Netflix at the moment.

Anonymous wrote:

It’s not necessary to tell the story in chronological order, but streamlining out a few scenes that don’t make a damn difference could help.

Yeah totally agree . It feels like it was trying to be clever for cleavers sake but it didn’t add to the narrative at all.

maybe a different type of colour grading would of helped over the past/future but with so many characters not aging it was a bit confusing at first and drew me out of the story.

Spending more time trying to figure out “when is going on” rather than connecting to the characters is very counterproductive.

 

SteveUK wrote:

Things I don’t like; playing around with the chronology. Just tell the bloody story. I wish show runners would stop trying to be so bloody clever.

Mark Abnett wrote:

It feels like it was trying to be clever for cleavers sake but it didn’t add to the narrative at all.

I disagree. If you think about how the story would work if told chronologically – the order in which we would meet certain characters, and the reveals that would no longer work as reveals at all because their significance wouldn’t be explained to the viewer until much later – I think it’s pretty clear why they went the way that they did.

For example, the events of the first episode give stakes and gravitas and dramatic irony to many of the later scenes that are set before those events. Without knowing what we know is to come later, they wouldn’t be anywhere near as meaningful.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes

EDIT: Sorry Steve, that probably came across as unnecessarily rude.  As we would say in the law: it appears we are speaking at cross-purposes.

Cheers Tim.

And thanks for the potted history and geography, but if I can’t get it from the show I’m not going to read the Cliff Notes.

Dave wrote:

For example, the events of the first episode give stakes and gravitas and dramatic irony to many of the later scenes that are set before those events. Without knowing what we know is to come later, they wouldn’t be anywhere near as meaningful.

So… it does become meaningful? Eventually?

Good to know.

It does, but you may still feel there could have been a better way of doing it. It certainly isn’t elegant and there could have maybe been a little more clarity in places without sacrificing anything, but it still worked for me.

All the fractured chronology needed was was some indication of when what was happening was.

The time jumps are really not helping me, I’m sort of figuring it out, but I’m not enjoying the process or appreciating it.

Right now, my geek shorthand for the show is; take a little bit of Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones and Harry Potter, add some Westworld structuring and then make everyone a bit of an asshole. That’s ‘The Witcher’.

One thing I’m wondering, because they mention it a couple of times, is that whole “convergence” thing (I think that’s what it was called)… it makes me wonder if this world is actually a world like ours that collided with a fantasy world… don’t know but I hope they get into the lore of the world at some point, that could be interesting.

Jon wrote:

it makes me wonder if this world is actually a world like ours that collided with a fantasy world… don’t know but I hope they get into the lore of the world at some point, that could be interesting.

Isn’t that basically Stephen King’s Dark Tower series?

No idea… but there’s a lot of stories like that, so yeah maybe… But the interesting thing here in the Witcher is they speak very modernly, so maybe it has to do with that, maybe it was a modern-ish world that got merged with another… I dunno… might explain some stuff…

Anonymous wrote:

DavidM wrote:

I have no idea whether Moorcock had read Tolkien or not, but if he did then I find no evidence of it in his work. I’m a bit baffled that anyone would think it was at all similar. Robert E. Howard, yes, that’s blatant and obvious. But Tolkien?

Have you read The Children of Hurin?

No, why would I read a book that was published in the 21st century?

But I don’t think it can support your argument anyway. Though if Moorcock’s writing in the 60s and 70s was influenced by a book published in 2007, that’s very impressive.

Jon wrote:

One thing I’m wondering, because they mention it a couple of times, is that whole “convergence” thing (I think that’s what it was called)… it makes me wonder if this world is actually a world like ours that collided with a fantasy world… don’t know but I hope they get into the lore of the world at some point, that could be interesting.

That is interesting. Most or even all of the creatures in the show are based on myths from Slavic folklore, so there could be some concept that this series takes place in a world that at some point was accessible from Eastern Europe.

However, I think it may just be a fantasized geography based on Eastern Europe like Westeros and Middle Earth are based on Britain. Interesting that with Robert E Howard, he used some eccentric theories about Atlantis and lost civilizations to create the settings for Kull and Conan.

Atlantis and Lemuria were prominent in the Kull stories, but REH’s own map of Conan’s Hyborian Age mimicked the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. Aquilonia represented the Roman Empire, Cimmeria and the Pictish Wilderness were basically the UK and Ireland, Brythunia was Germany/Austria, and Zingara was Spain. To the south were Koth and Shem(Egypt/North Africa), Stygia, Kush, Zembabwei, Darfar and Punt all representing Africa. Directly east was Turan (Russia), below that Vendhya (India), and further west Khitai (China).

I’ve just come across an image of Renfri’s brooch attached to Geralt’s sword and now I can’t unsee it.

It’s like a wee ickle happy cheery sword. A demented Thomas the Tank Engine Hilt.

Oh, as regards Children of Húrin: dates right back to post World War One Tolkien. There are snippets in Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales and C. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth History. It’s one of his Great Tales. Even if it wasn’t, maybe Moorcock and Tolkien are both riffing off of Finland’s Beowulf.

Can’t recall the name right now.

So, Pooh, I say Pooh. Even Winnie the Pooh’s tales aren’t so cosy under the surface. Neither is Lord of the Rings. Poor Bilbo hid from the awful grasping Lobelia right at the beginning. Frodo saved the Shire (but not for him). Samwise was the truest of all, but even he was nasty to Sméagol when Gollum needed some kindness.

The main difference between Elric and Geralt is that the Witcher is primarily about having stupid fun. There is an average of thirty dumb things about every Witcher episode, but it remains fun throughout. It’s not trying to be more serious than game of thrones and the original writer certainly didn’t intend to become the next great fantasy author.

Anonymous wrote:

the Witcher is primarily about having stupid fun.

I am up to Episode 6 and I liked that Geralt and Yennifer break up because she wants kids and he doesn’t.

DavidM wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DavidM wrote:

I have no idea whether Moorcock had read Tolkien or not, but if he did then I find no evidence of it in his work. I’m a bit baffled that anyone would think it was at all similar. Robert E. Howard, yes, that’s blatant and obvious. But Tolkien?

Have you read The Children of Hurin?

No, why would I read a book that was published in the 21st century?

But I don’t think it can support your argument anyway. Though if Moorcock’s writing in the 60s and 70s was influenced by a book published in 2007, that’s very impressive.

Anonymous wrote:

I’ve just come across an image of Renfri’s brooch attached to Geralt’s sword and now I can’t unsee it.

It’s like a wee ickle happy cheery sword. A demented Thomas the Tank Engine Hilt.

Oh, as regards Children of Húrin: dates right back to post World War One Tolkien. There are snippets in Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales and C. Tolkien’s Middle-Earth History. It’s one of his Great Tales. Even if it wasn’t, maybe Moorcock and Tolkien are both riffing off of Finland’s Beowulf.

Can’t recall the name right now.

So, Pooh, I say Pooh. Even Winnie the Pooh’s tales aren’t so cosy under the surface. Neither is Lord of the Rings. Poor Bilbo hid from the awful grasping Lobelia right at the beginning. Frodo saved the Shire (but not for him). Samwise was the truest of all, but even he was nasty to Sméagol when Gollum needed some kindness.

Yeah, David, you big jerkhead

No, David is sunny as a sunflower.

He’s just admitted his true feelings about Clara Who. You simply have to placate him with marmalade sandwiches.

I still think Moorcock is about as far from Tolkien as London is from Sydney when you’ve only got a bicycle with a puncture and your left leg is in plaster.

My swordhand is singing.

You read me opposite and upside down. I’ll quote you some relevant Tolkien later, David. If you like Blake you should read Philip Pullman’s piece.

I read Moorcock’s essay. He’s cherry-picking. I’d like to know what he’d make of Talbot’s cuddly teddy bears.

Legion is a re-make of Winnie the Pooh.

 

DavidM wrote:

I still think Moorcock is about as far from Tolkien as London is from Sydney when you’ve only got a bicycle with a puncture and your left leg is in plaster.

Just wait until I tell you about how Metallica inspired Deep Purple

I can’t wait.

Did Jerky McJerkfaces inspire Paddington’s hardstare or his predilection for marmalade sandwiches?

Finished season 1 yesterday. It probably took 4 or 5 episodes before I was really able to follow anything that was actually going on due to all the time jumping around between storylines, but overall I had fun with the show. I’ll be back for a season 2.

Anonymous wrote:

Legion is a re-make of Winnie the Pooh.

Now there’s one to ponder. Love the idea.

Also, I’m almost finished with this season of Witcher. It’s been a lot of fun; it’s just nice to see a good adventure fantasy show out there. And I didn’t find the different timelines confusing at all. Or rather, I didn’t mind being confused a bit here and there.

Also, a lot of the more recent fantasy shows are a bit more kid-oriented, so it’s good to have some adult ones as well…

Anonymous wrote:

Legion is a re-make of Winnie the Pooh.

If you watch the live action version of Beauty and the Beast (with Dan Stevens as Beast) with the mindset that it’s a prequel to the Legion TV series, it totally works.

Todd wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Legion is a re-make of Winnie the Pooh.

If you watch the live action version of Beauty and the Beast (with Dan Stevens as Beast) with the mindset that it’s a prequel to the Legion TV series, it totally works.

I caught a bit of it at Christmas, looked pretty enough but fell a bit flat. I liked the part where she read to him out in the snow.

There are traces of The Little Mermaid in The Witcher. Must’ve been inspired by the Warsaw Mermaid legend.

Over two years ago… from netflixwitcher

Today I learned níos mó Polish: Jaskier = Buttercup.

The Witcher is a re-imagining of The Princess Bride.

Pick quotes at random and it works. Not so inconceivable!

Geralt is all, “Say hello to horse and I love you.”

Fencing. Fighting. Torture. Beautifulist ladies. More unfairness…

Yennifer, “I am your servant. I refuse.”

Anonymous wrote:

Jaskier = Buttercup.

Not Dandelion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Jaskier = Buttercup.

Not Dandelion?

In the original Polish he’s Jaskier (phonetically). I just double-checked even though I already knew I knew (I need to stop doing that). Now I’ve discovered different translators chose different yellow-coloured flowers. In one version he’s Marigold, another Dandelion, so you can call him Daffodil if you like.

Regardless, I had fun with The Princess Bride.

No you’re rights in the original Polish his name is Jaskier.

But it’s translated to Julian in English and he goes by the moniker Dandelion in both (english) books and game.

Jaskier sounds more Witcher. Julian belongs in a boarding school up The Magic Faraway Tree.

I still think of him as Dandelion. I was just playing with quotes.

Jaskier is a nice nod to the original source material. One of the best things about the Netflix adaptation is more people are now playing The Witcher game than when it was first released.

I like Dandelion as a character. He’ll always be Dandelion to me.

Names do have meaning and all sorts of connotations. I have a book of Irish names from when I did research on The Táin. Tadhg has been anglicised as Timothy. There are lots of Tadhgs – various kings and sons of kings and warriors – in The Annals of the Four Masters. The name means poet, philosopher, storyteller.

That’s my interesting fact for the day.

<p style=”text-align: left;”>My name is Tadhg?</p>

It’s the nearest equivalent to Tim.

It’s a sign!

The Witcher focuses on whether characters have a destiny. Clearly you’re destined to study philosophy and write epic poems about…oh I don’t know… some Irish princess or other. She needs a good name, and a mithril shirt. Can’t think what you might call her.

Billy the Princessette!

Anonymous wrote:

Billy the Princessette!

I am not liking this Billy the Princessette. She can ride off on her white horsey back to Dutchlandstein.

Queen Bernadette Merry Jessica Alba Isn’t-Please and her loyal retainer Pip

Billy the Princessette is welcome to the throne. Heavy weighs the crown and all that. I’d be a rubbish queen. I’m all for making merry but only if everyone gets to eat cake. I’d wind up getting Ned Starked. But I wouldn’t say no to a cloak, and a castle filled with puppies.

They really should bring back cloaks with lots of useful pockets.

Men take pockets for granted.

The history of pockets is interesting. Very political and patriarchal.

The Witcher show has been pretty good at addressing the varying obstacles Calanthe, Yennefer, Ciri, Pavetta and the rest have to face. One of the more poignant moments was when lost Ciri thought she’d found some old friends from Cintra. All fake. Poor wee thing. She gave them her own version of the Surprise.

 

Anonymous wrote:

Men take pockets for granted.

not all men.

njerry wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Men take pockets for granted.

not all men.

Aye, you’re thinking you can bring back a couple more Totoro cream puffs in your pocketses.

It’s like you’re reading my mind!!

I knew you were going to say that!

No release date as yet but Netflix have confirmed the new anime film from Studio Mir is set in The Witcher world — Nightmare of the Wolf.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, Uncle Retrospective

Yep, that summarised pretty well why The Witcher was such great fun.

Looking forward to this.

The first episode was leaked, but I guess it all comes out tomorrow, so there… time to ressurect the thread.

First episode was okay… didn’t really care for the Jenefer/evil witch part of the plot, tbh, I feel it’s gonna be a drag until they reunite, so I hope that happens a bit sooner than later.

Other than that, damn, the VFX looks really good… I’m assuming they got more $$$ for this season, so that probably means more creatures, and less shitty than the ones in S1.

Looking forward to this coming back. Hopefully will have a chance to get a couple of episodes in on Friday night.

Episode 2 and holy shit, confirmed, they really upped the budget because it looks spectacular, and not just the CGI, the whole show looks beautiful in every single shot. It’s quite the contrast with The Wheel of Time show that I just watched recently for example.

Anyhow, glad to see the whole Jeneffer side of the story is indeed moving along, I was afraid for a bit that it was gonna be padding, but looks like it’s good to go too. Nice to also see more of the other peoples of this world, and like with everything else, they’re killing it with the costumes too. This might not be GoT, but the production quality is really up there with GoT.

Oh also: Dude, Henry Cavill is a fuckin’ god. So far there hasn’t been a spectacular battle scene like S1E1, but damn you can see how much he’s trained to move smoothly and in a very powerful stiking way, when he holds up a sword, there’s no shakiness, the guy is like a statue… I’m pretty impressed with his physical skill here… can’t wait for a big sword fight, hope there is one.

Okay done, I had to binge it, this season was tight as fuck, over too quickly =(

Anyways, yeah this was good, hardly any fat. There’s a lot to unpack though, the world kind of exploded compared to season one with A LOT more of political intrigue and machinations, along with all the more supernatural stuff… funny though, I don’t know if this was the intention, but this season really did feel a lot more like GoT, which might be good news for Netflix.

Speaking of GoT though, there was a notable absence of nudity, and listen, the story didn’t necessarily call for it so whatever, but it’s worrying if they’re just straight up removing that aspect altogether… sure they went a bit to ham with Yeneffer’s boobs in season 1, but here’s they went as ham in the opposite direction which is just as bad.

I still have to digest it, so I’ll post more later, but suffice to say, it was a great season, sucks to have to wait who knows how long for S3, but really looking forward to it.