Why The Witcher Feels Pretentious...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- A Video Essay about The Witcher on Netflix and why it's ACTUALLY Pretentious...
After watching The Witcher Season 3 on Netflix (or at least volume 1 of the Witcher Season 3) I've concluded that the show is not only pretentious, but guilty of copying stylistic choices made by better directors, such as Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan.
By Comparing The Witcher's first season to Quentin Tarantino's film Pulp Fiction, and The Witcher's cliffhanger ending to Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, we can hopefully explore why this Netflix show just doesn't seem to know what to do with itself.
I'm not trying to hate on this series, as I've enjoyed my time with it up until now -- though I must admit Henry Cavil stepping down from the role of Geralt of Rivia is a HUGE bummer -- but I've just noticed some fundamental flaws that I'm excited to discuss.
Is there hope for Netflix's The Witcher? Or is it destined to be out of touch with its audience FORVERER dramatic echo
I'm Dylan, and THIS is The Writer's Block
Written & Edited ---------------------------- Dylan Gregory @TheWritersBlockOfficial
Music Credits:
Track: "mellow bounce", seazin
Music provided by slip.stream
Free Download / Stream: get.slip.strea...
Listen on Spotify: go-stream.link...
Track: "Old Polaroids", Eazy
Music provided by slip.stream
Free Download / Stream: get.slip.strea...
Listen on Spotify: go-stream.link...
Track: "Wavelength (Original Mix)", Fog Temple
Music provided by slip.stream
Free Download / Stream: get.slip.strea...
Track: "Happy Together", Birdo
Music provided by slip.stream
Free Download / Stream: get.slip.strea...
Listen on Spotify: go-stream.link...
#thewitcher #netflixwitcher #thewitcher3 #henrycavill #henrycavillwitcher
#theproblemwiththewitcher #thewitchersbigproblem #witcherseason3
#videoessay #filmcritique #filmanalysis #thewitcherexplained
Which Director do you prefer? Tarantino or Nolan???
Why not both? :D
@@thekinginthenorth5978 Both. Both is good
Del Toro
Wait what was the question?
Martin Scorsese
Netflix was handed an easy lay up. They had what could have been a Game of thrones level franchise with an A list actor fully on board. It’s despicable.
*eye twitches as I remember they cancelled Dark Crystal Age of Resistance for the Lulz*
Easily one of the biggest failures ever. The priority wasn’t the story. It was political agendas and narcissistic writers wanting to put their own twist on everything even if it was for the worse. There is no way they truly believed fans would be ok with this shit. They just wanted to do what they wanted to do.
You need good writers for that
Honestly, at least it fell apart immediately instead of being good for 5 seasons before drastically falling off
I fee like aiming for Game of Thrones was the problem. It's a sweeping narrative grand political intrigue. The characters, interesting as they may be, are there primarily for us to watch through. That's why there is such a long roster of characters who shift in and out of the spotlight, get killed off, or get introduced halfway through the story.
The Witcher is surprisingly enough about the character, the titular witcher. It's more character focused. The source material is better suited to exploring Geralt's character through a tight, personal plot, or through episodic vignettes with overarching themes.
In Game of Thrones, we are interested in what implications character decisions and developments have for the world. In the Witcher, we are(at least I am) interested in what implications the world has for our characters
Pretentious is the kindest thing a person can say about the choices that have taken place during the course of The Witcher. You sir, are being very kind.
Lol. I get what you mean. I try to be positi e un my video essays. Or at least make sure its more about the analysis than complaining. But for sure get what you're saying
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial The first season of The Witcher was great ... but season 2 lacking , and 3 season seems like they never really had the story set out what they wanted to do. No wonder Henry no longer wanted anything to do with the show , also he had disagreements with the showrunner , and also how the show was going.
@@michaelhawkins7389 Calling the first season "great" is a bit of a reach. It was just okay. There were parts of it that were great, certainly, especially Henry Cavill's portrayal of Geralt, who basically carried the entire first season on his back by himself. But there were also a lot of parts even of season one that sucked, and sucked a lot. Not even Cavill's obvious love and respect for his character can save season one from being just okay.
@@chriswhinery925 It's called personal opinion and please can you stop projecting "yours" on to me .... I thought the first season was great
@@michaelhawkins7389 well i mean considering the fact that the seasons dont get considerably worse or better id say its not really "projecting." They keep the same jumbled nonlinear timeline, boring dialog, and obvious disdain for the original material and the audience who follows it through all their seasons. I mean come on, the first season will make a several hundred year time jump without giving any context as to when or where exactly you are in the story before jumping back without actually accomplishing anything with the scene, all while keeping Dandelion a mortal human the same 20-30 year old goober that is far more annoying than he ever was in the books or games. The time jumps are so pointless they cant even be bothered to make sure it makes sense for a character to have lived for hundreds of years before pointlessly shoving him into a scene
I absolutely LOVED the fact that you treated Season 2 like it NEVER existed!
Tbf, so did the writers...
@2107Slash Not even close, kid. S3P2 was passable. S2 was the most forgettable trash to ever hit any fantasy series and I'm saying that in a post Legend of The Seeker world.
That scene with the dinner table massacre trying SO hard to be the next Red Wedding was absolutely hilarious.
@@Jane-oz7ppI can't remember anything from s2 other than the killing of Eskel and the witch thing, but I can't remember her name 😂
Why should it exist? What exactly of import happened?
If the writers think they can make a better story than the original material, its automatically pretentious 😂
@@bwhere45 They're also trying that with the main series. At least like 75% of it. Keeping just enough to call itself "The Witcher".
@@bwhere45 actaully its called "The Witcher"
I'd like to know whose decision it was to purchase the rights to a source material, and then proceed to shit all over it, purposefully. Even the writer of the books is more or less "no comment" on the show. Like, you have a built in fanbase all ready to rock, and a character actor who is excited to please those fans. So you immediately get to the obligatory race and gender swapping as well as just writing, nothing. I think in order to be pretentious, it has to have some sort of baseline introspective on itself and its own writing skill level. Otherwise it's basically called being stupid and unaware. And that's exactly what it was.
a good writer can tho
examples
the leftovers
the godfather
no country for old men
the green mile
the shawshank redemption
game of thrones season 5 and 6 were not books too and they were really good
The last wish book has a perfect framing device for a season of television but the people making the show were too inept to realize it
💯
They desperately wanted to let people know that it was like GOT and would have it's own big Endgame/White Walker moment that it sacrificed one of the most unique fantasy books ever written. How cool would've been an anthology like the Last Wish or the Sword of Destiny in a world saturated by Fantasy political dramas?
@@MrHazz111 it hurts honestly, the polish hexer series did things better and even has a pretty good something more scene. Still a pretty lackluster show but it did the Witcher so much better in my opinion.
@@shawnamiller191 I suggest checking out the recent 'A grain of truth' Witcher comic that Dark horse put out. It's basically a middle finger to the TV show on how a visual adaptation should be done.
'The Lesser Evil' comes out this year too and I think they plan to adapt each of the short stories in the last wish.
@@MrHazz111 sounds interesting
Why are they even doing confusing timeline jumps in a fantasy series? The difficulty of a fantasy series is that there is too much information that you have to convey to the audience. What are all the different factions involved? What is a Witcher? What is the rule set to magic in this universe? What is going on with the politics of all the factions? With shows that take place in our timeline, you can simply say "1980s Los Angeles" and people will instantly have most of the information they need because of their real life knowledge. They haven't even covered the essentials of the Witcher universe and they are wasting time by replaying things over and over again.
Exactly!!! I'm playing through Witcher 3 and there's an optional conversation that establishes the politics and status quo of the continent better 3 seasons of the show have.
Time and space is heavily used as a narrative tool in the books. Events are often told from the perspective of different people, sometimes as it happens, sometimes narration skips to the future and events are told through conversation between characters reminiscing about their past, sometimes as excerpts from Jaskier's autobiography or through magically induced dreams of the past or through prophecies. The key difference is that while narration is non-linear, the story it tells is linear. In the withcer the whole point is that the politics and grand events, wars and assassinations are nothing but background against which the story of Geralt and Ciri takes place. It is heavily implied that it doesn't matter who wins the Northern wars, the peasants will still be taxed to brink of starvation, people will be prejudiced and the gears will keep on turning. In fact the parts where story is told from the perspective of the future serves to underline that the story we are following, ultimately is nothing but a curious footnote in the annals of time and will have no more impact on the world as a whole than anything else.
This is spot on. Imagine if Game of Thrones was trying to do tricky timeline stuff in Season 1 ... when the audience won't even know the basics of which characters belong to which houses. Memento can do weird stuff like that because there is zero world building work required to understand its setting, and there is an actual payoff to the scenes being presented in reverse order
The only way I understood season 1 was because my boyfriend would sit me down and explain all of the contextual book knowledge that scenes and dialogue barely hinted at. It was ridiculous.
@@IsshTM From what you told me I understand it's like jumping between past and future many times and the future is to confirm the past didn't matter and between all of these is Geralt, Cirim Yenefer story that actually progresses.
The writers also complained in S2 through Jaskier about people not getting their non-linear pattern. Then they made up a bunch of terrible ideas of Yen, a character they showed wanted to be a mom selling a child for power.
they just projected their own ideas onto yen, because that's something i have no doubt the writers would do without hesitation
Yeah, I wanted to stop watching when the Elves, vulnerable and being killed off, went back on the promises with seemingly little consideration to the consequences but when Yen started pulling all that,I wanted to throw the TV out the window. So dumb
@@furiscafynn6275 well, it is in the books. Stupid elfs who kill and steal and rape and burn. Who masturbated to their wet dream - extermenate all humans, but guess what? Their fantasies get crushed again and again. Yet, they never learned their lesson.
And, Yennebitch, who used Ciri merely as her tool, who did not give a fuck about safety of Ciri, who putef her in grave danger without a blink IN THE BOOKS....
But who give a shit about the books? Nobody even readed them.
Witcher short stories are great. And they are organised with intention in first book-first you have the story named "The Witcher" where you can learn about Witchers-about their job, how others treat them, how the world around them is medieval like (Sapkowski used specific terms for that) and so on. Then you have "A Grain of Truth"- you already know Geralt travels a lot, now you can see a bit more from this fantasy world. And AFTER those two stories plus special inserted story named "The Voice of Reason" that TIES EVERYTHING TOGETHER you have Renfi.
Ciri has her part in second short stories book, there was no need to rush it. Or make her older. Or make her grandma Calanthe like she is completelly different character. Or...I don´t know, like anything else they did.
Short stories are also in chronological order, and connected, in the first book, by the story in the temple of Melitele. It was super easy to adapt them....and they failed.
@@moonknightish yeah the one in Temple was Voice of reason. It could be an easy job indeed
Well they probably made her older for practical reasons. It's easier to get an 18 year old actress and make her play a younger teenager than to get a child actor playing a child. Child protection laws on set (like less shooting time per day) as well as potentially having to recast as she gets older could complicate things. Although if they really cared I'm sure they could manage it.
@@Evija3000 I get it but her getting older and maturing is as important as it was in Harry Potter or something like that.
@@karlmodry716 Exactly! She is way too old in the series. In GOT they have also made characters a bit older than in books but still young enough that we could watch them grow over time and it still made sense. In The Witcher Ciri doesn't even get the chance to show the growth from naive child she was at the beggining of the story, through the rebelious and angry times as Falka and eventually her mature self. I don't think they can make it believable in the series. Such a shame.
The writers of this show decided to go with the old 'If you can't bedazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.'
The problem is that the showrunner and the writers think they are better than they actually are, and so they reach for somewhat clever ideas but fail at delivering every time, not to mention the silly conviction that they are better than Sapkowski at storytelling
The witcher could be been a very great show if we just have different writers because I think the actors did the best they can with the awful script the writer choose to make. I just hope the next time around with a writer who understand fantasy genre.
Former Wotcher writers have said that members of the writers room mocked and disliked the source material. The best elements were stuff that came because of the influence of Henry Cavill who was actually a fan of the books and games. You don't have to be a longtime fan of something to work on an adaptation, but you should at least understand and respect it.
This is not about understanding fantasy. This is about spreading their propaganda. Would will never get a show again that is done right. They know what they are doing and it is all on purpose.
@@StylePoints14No no no. I think you're referring to gay characters and "strong women", but this could have been done well. It comes out poorly for exactly the SAME reasons the plot does. The writers are doing it insincerely. If I went over every poorly written film of the 20th century, and said the reason they were bad was because they were about a straight man saving a woman, you would say I was a fanatic. But you, imitating a lot of TH-cam numbskulls, are doing exactly the same thing with poorly written shows today. You're taking all badly written shows with gay characters and heroins and insisting that's what's wrong with them.
@@StylePoints14also, there are gay characters In the original material, it's just totally different characters
@@squirlmy Yeah some of the sorceresses are lesbian. That's about it. Not really realistic that people are openly gay in medieval Europa, but it is fantasy so.... and the original writer is probably also affected by stupid modern ideas when he wrote the books.
What annoyed me the most is that in season 1 Geralt was the most true to the books/games and that was a good thing. There was also a way more dark and ominous vibe that suited perfectly with Sapkowski's writing and completely disappeared in season 3. It became half a comedy which lines just didn't hit and a family bond that just was not developed well enough in my opinion. Honestly, I think they should have listened to Henry.
@@danjoredd 100% agree. They seem to be going for a recipe that is more mainstream in the hopes of making it better or creating a broader audience, but it makes it lose all originality
@@danjoredd I don't really agree, I think S2 of Mando was better than the first. The first five minutes of the first episode of Mandalorian was the best part of any of the seasons, but there were some episodes in S1 than were really lame and overly formulaic. S3 was really a downgrade to either season. I also think there's a lot about S1 of the Witcher that is problematic which sets up why the later seasons were doomed to failure even though it was the best season of the three.
I'd say it's more similar to the Disney sequel trilogy. TFA was the least bad, but when you examine the story you realize there isn't much to it. TLJ was worse, tried to do something new but botched it and undermined the trajectory of the first season. TRoS was bad in part because the tried to correct the issues in the second movie but spent most of the runtime pivoting towards a conclusion while trying to gaslight the audience into thinking that the story even remotely made sense and tried to make you care about about characters that had a half-baked development.
@@danjoredd I feel like the worst parts of S1 are the exact same issue though, the 4th episode is exactly that, a pointless side quest that was badly executed. I'd also say the last two episodes of S1 are also a bit clumsy in how they resolve the climax.
@@danjoreddy’all really will clap for anything, won’t you?
This show feels like it wants to be game of thrones when the fans just want to see Geralt hunt monsters
Either or. Its the half way for both approach that hurts it. Art can be anything but good art always commits
tbh i didnt give a shit about the witcher series until i saw Cavill was playing geralt and seeing cavill do the promotional material and talk about his prep and passion made me want to watch HIM and by proxy i started looking into the witcher series itself to be familiar with stuff. Its criminal that they have an actor like cavill who has that kind of drawing power and they totally shat all over him.
And there's plenty of stories that have a Game of Thrones style plot but the Witcher is not one of them.
Fans that expected to see Geralt hunting monsters did not read the books. That barely happens there. In fact, for a good chunk of the saga Geralt is not even present, like at all. It evolves to narrate Ciri's exploits and Sapkowski's (the author) SJW rant against misogy.
Watching Geralt fight CG monsters is one of the worst parts of the show. The battles vs humans or humanoid monsters are far better.
Honestly, I find the self-contained monster episodes more compelling than the larger storyline. I felt the same push and pull in The Mandalorian
Thats monster episode is the only reason people keep coming back but dissapointed
Actually that's why people consider Witcher's short stories to be superior to main saga.
Main saga is cool as well, tho.
And netflix butchered it all.
I think generally one overarching issue with the witcher is that the writers are too enamoured with the witches and not with the witcher. There are many scenes throughout season 3 where i have to remind myself of the shows title since you wouldnt think geralt is the titular character, hes closer to jaskier in terms of importance if a scene contains either ciri or yen.
Which is kinda the point, Yennefer is more of the main character than geralt is. Family scenes are constructed to build report between yen and ciri while pretty much skipping geralt. Badass fighting scenes are built more to build up ciri than display geralt even as a mentor, he kinda gives some advise in advance and then she just does her own thing.
Heck, the writers are happy to derail the progression of the plot for heart to hearts between jaskier and radovid which is far more than they seem willing to do for geralt character development. He just feels like an afterthought in most scenes he's in, kinda like alfred in batman. Yes the guy is important but his screentime is primarily driven by his relationship to batman, batman is the important character and alfreds importance has only fairly recently been brought forwards, hes normally important only in how batman interacts with him.
Geralt is yennefers love interest and ciris protector and semi mentor in fighty things, thats his relationship to the plot most of the time in this show.
plus we had to get fat ugly witches in there when they are all supposed to be gorgeous
actually in the books ciri becomes the main character in front of geralt but it was done so poorly by the show anyway
@@hazox__ Oh, yes, fully aware that the plot of the saga is built around ciri and as things progress, she takes more and more prominence but that hasn't really happened until after thanedd.
"It wants people to think that It's clever, without doing the hard work to actually earn that reputation" Spot on!
Problem of season 1 is just bad execution, idea was great. And you do get little hints about different timelines, but I don't know are they so small and "hidden" on purpose or just part of bad execution. There should be clear cut moment of reveal about where everything is in every of 3 characters story in regard to others, but it's not there. That makes it even more confusing later on when you do know about timelines because show keeps not being clear where characters are in regard to each other in time.
And there is clear intent in this structure- to have a mystery about connection between Geralt and Ciri- you do know since episode 1 they are somehow tied together because her grandmother says to her to find Geralt. Going from episode 4 at the start would kill that mystery. Other more important reason not to go linear is that Yen would appear at the end of season 1 when Ciri is not even born, so you have to go in different timelines if you want all 3 main characters in first season of the show.
In regard to episode 5 of season 3 idea is again good, but here unlike in season 1 it's not a problem of bad execution, idea itself is not done at all- you should get different perspectives of same events to "fill in the puzzle" but instead you get repetition of identical information with a bit more every time. Its tedious and just bad.
Structure is actually lesser problem why this show is bad. Main problem is bad "style" of writing dialogue for characters and not knowing how to progress the story in a natural way. Thats why everything after episode 1 of season 2 is extremely tedious and boring (moment when showrunner started completely to ignore source material and make her own shit up).
Seriously, those hints about the timeline were so bad sometimes. They show two blond children in a ball for two seconds and we're supposed to figure out that it's Foltest and his sister and we're in the past? Only noticed that on a second watch. Meanwhile almost none of the characters age and even the one who does - Jaskier - never changes his appearance? Bad execution I'd say.
@@Evija3000 There was also in episode 1 when queen talks to Ciri, she mentions a battle she was fighting when she was 17. In Geralt part of the story same battle is mentioned by Renfri in same episode as it happened just a month ago. So, from that also you can conclude that Geralt and his story is in the past. Picture was kind of obvious because it was scene after scene, but this was them being "smart".
after s3 ep5 i was done. As much as i love cavill as geralt i just cant be btohered with this shit show anymore and from what i hear he is completely sidelined and emmascualted the final three episodes.
Few know it but there was a Polish series Witcher from 2001 with Żebrowski as Geralt and it was a flop but still better than stuff by Netflix.
I watched it so so so long ago when I was a kid, but I still remember being impressed and a little bit scared of queen Calanthe. This woman got presence!
When I heard "Melange," I immediately thought of Dune.
So here's the thing, it's not even that the show's writers decidedly to haphazardly plug these devices into the story in a way that fits the narrative. These devices existed in the books in a way that DID serve the narrative, then the writers went and changed the narrative in ways that made those devices no longer fit. I think this is also a big part of why the show is frustrating and confusing for many viewers.
Thank you! I could never quite put my finger on why the timeline in The Witcher series felt so wrong (whereas Dunkirk, for example, felt so right). This video spells it out clearly and concisely.
Glad I could help
Nice to see that the first season is getting the well deserved criticism.
It's just insane how badly the writers flopped with this show. The first book ALONE would've been enough for a FULL SEASON. It introduced Geralt, his character, what a Witcher does, how they're viewed or treated, and how the world works from an outsider's perspective. Not only that, but it created thought-provoking situations that the readers (or watchers in this case) could actually ponder with their own beliefs and morals. Those situations also allowed for readers to see that Geralt isn't your typical fantasy drama hero-he has flaws and makes mistakes that negatively affect him. And not to mention, despite the first two books being basically short stories that feature Geralt, they tie PERFECTLY into the eventual plot. Like how we learn of Yennefer and how her relationship is with Geralt BEFORE we actually meet her, and when she shows up, we know enough of how she ties into the actual plot without the readers having enough background to form a concrete opinion on her character. UGHHHHH I can go on forever. Don't even bring up what they did to the other Witchers (esp. Eskel and Vesemir). For all intents and purposes, they'll have an eventual love triangle with Regis, Geralt, and Yen, and make him 200 years younger to make him more conventionally attractive.
Resident Evil Revelations 2 has 2 campaigns: Claire and Barry.
The game starts you up with Claire, where in a party, she gets ambushed and kidnapped in a Russian prison, and the only survivor she finds is Barry's daughter, Moira. They make their way to an exit as they discover the purpose of their bracelets, and finally make it to a radio tower, where after fixing it, Moira sends a broadcast message begging for help.
The camera pans out as it's revealed they're stuck in an island far from civilization. The Camera then keeps moving to reveal a boat heading towards the island, and it's Barry, who is listening to his daughter's call for help.
Playing as Barry, he finds a little girl who can see monsters through walls, she's highly traumatized and seems to be lacking emotions at first, as she's suppressing most of her traumatic memories and therefore can't help Barry, until she recovers her memory. By the time Barry reaches the radio tower, it's already night and dark, and no signs of neither Claire or Moira (At this point I'm thinking if Claire had waited in that radio tower a little longer, they would've met up with Barry). He activates a button on the radio tower and listens to his daughter's broadcast again, only to find out that the broadcast was sent 6 months ago, and when Barry calls her name, the little girl accompanying him, Natalia, starts to remember who Moira was, only to reveal she was already dead.
The subsequent campaigns will alter between Claire and Moira in the past, and Barry and Natalia in the present. But now I'm playing wondering how is it that Moira will die, when will it happen (thinking I'd probably be paired up with another character halfway through the game, like Neil, Pedro, Gabe).
That game really did hone in the non-linear timeline and it was so good because of it.
Seeing the witcher try something similar with absolutely no real cohesion or reason why only ended up making things tediously confusing. I read the books long before the show, and I still couldn't figure out why the hell would they take the non-linear approach.
Is revelations 2 the remake? or is that a different one?
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Revelations 2 is a different game that takes place after RE5 and before RE6. I think it's the last resident evil game they made before they introduced the RE Engine.
Oh ok got it
Imagine if they made this show like a medieval fantasy X-Files.
One can only dream
I’m glad you put a finger on what I’ve always felt was off about the Witcher. Especially the third season, it felt like the setup and payoff was so unsatisfying. Fights that were hyped up for the whole season end in a second and other big moments pop out of nowhere.
Non-chronological storytelling is okay. But cutting scenes together to make them appear chronological when they aren't is a cardinal sin for me, and The Witcher does it with no real payoff, making the story a plodding mess. The counter example I would use isn't the Pulp Fiction, but Season 1 of Westworld. That was a show with multiple storylines that played out chronologically, but the twist of the final episode was that one of the story arcs had been a flashback to the main villain's origin story whole time. I thought that twist was pretentious, but its superior execution was at least coherent & only damaged one episode rather than the entire seaosn.
Only now I've actually realized that the show failes to establish who Ciri even is until the Law of Surprise episode if you haven't read the books or played the games...
Great video! The sad thing is, it's not just the best film-makers/auteurs that can pull off satisfying non-linear storylines. A sitcom like "How I Met your Mother" pulled it off pretty regularly and to great effect (for an effective use of the multi-POV example set during a "tense" party, see S7 E15 "The Burning Beekper"). This just enhances the terrible writing on Netflix's part, rather than pretentiousness imo
Thanks for bringing up Dunkirk. Incredible use of different timelines in that film. I'd never seen anything quite like it.
And even if you don't get what's going on, the story itself is still SUPER understandable, so it works perfectly either way
It should have been a monster of the week and deal with the overarching narrative.
The show would work better if it was a monster-of-the-week format. Have some of the monsters from the Book/game Witcher series to give them backstories and different perspectives, hell maybe show from the other P.O.V. and have Geralt just come in at the last second to kill the monster, but always play with the audience's expectation.
The Witcher series reminded me of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, which subvert tropes. They could have had a lot of fun with this tv show, but instead, it was just dull at times.
very much agreed. That's what the games do so well in my opinion. You can choose to focus on Witcher business, OR deal with the overarching plot. The show is SO focused on the overarching plot, but also does a super inconsistent job with telling that story
I literally thought this was one of my old comments cos I’ve said this so many times
Exactly
This is what I've always thought! It seems like the obvious structure- introduce people to the world and cast slowly, whilst having separate stories per episode for each monster. We'd get to know Witcher lore and the world and Geralt as well as how he copes with things and moral situations
Yup. The first season basically should have looked a lot like the first season of The Mandalorian, with heavy slavic fairytale influences.
Ah, I liked s1 for the most part - a bit pulpy but it felt like it had a real pulse, made of blood and flesh. The jumbled timelines felt like a reward when you figured it out. Subsequent season lack the drive in the first season, the party episode could have been fun but felt like rewiding an old VHS tape intermittenly.
Witcher season 1 was much better the second time through when I actually understood where all the time jumps were going. Why they didn't just put each character's episodes together - i'll never know. Or at least give an indication of where we were in the story.
From the costumes to the direction & editing, I agree 100%. And they keep failing at it.
my man you hit the nail on the head
Witcher S1 used random timeline/skips like how teenagers use Powerpoint slide transitions in highschool.
I enjoyed s1 of witcher but ill be lying if i say i didnt got confused in those 3 seperate timeline.
I am almost literally begging for someone with the time and equipment to edit "the Witcher" into a show that makes sense to watch! I think every Witcher fandom would watch it, as well as teach those damned directors a lesson.
Man, I just wanted it to be more about Geralt. I didn't play the games or read the books, but the more I watched this and DEFINITELY in Season 3... he's barely in it... fine, then call it The Witcher's Friends.
I tried to watch The Witcher and didn't even register there were multiple timelines happening. Partially from being so bored by lack of setup that my brain stopped processing. It was all so disjointed that they could have cut to World War 2 footage, and it wouldn't even stand out for me. Oh there's another scene that had no setup. Yawn.
This video does a great job of explaining why. Pulp Fiction is a great example of making you care about characters FIRST, and THEN changing up the timeline. I don't care about the jumps in chronolgy because I would follow those characters anywhere. So my brain is happy piecing things together. I'm not going to bother holding separate timelines in my head when all you give me is "member Witcher!?"
At first I didn’t understand why people were angry at the show but then I decided to read the books and everything I read in the books I felt so sad that they didn’t get right in the show
I don't think anyone should be beholden to stick to the source material, but IF you decide to change it, it better add not subtract from the overall work
My personal real problem with the Serie as an ignorant viewer, is this weird feeling of not having a linear path. During the story even tho we are in the third season so far, and hes been years since the story begun. We ain't seen a season "finale" it feels like we saw one long season and we aren't even halfway. Many things in the episodes feel forced and there is no feeling of real danger or immersion given to the watcher. It's like they only try to keep the person behind the screen watching for the longest time possible without giving him anything valuable.
There is certain...awkwardness about how the show does stuff, some of the moments which are supposed to be serious are almost made into a joke in the show, while other more lighthearted fun moments are treated almost too seriously :). The dialogue in the show is huge problem....mostly because they oftne ditch the brilliantly written dialogues from the original source material and write their own, the shifting focus...well season 1 tries to divide the time between three characters...but the material they use is firmly focused on Geralt (even so they don't even try to explore more of the Geralt's past, some of the short stories were not adapted at all, especially the one story that adds depth to the relationship between Yennefer and Geralt, the Shard of Ice story...but they still use the character of Istredd who appears in that story, hell they enlarged his role tremendously!) a lot of teh stuff from the short stories really got simplified in the show, there is lack of the book complexity and nuance!! The adaptation treatment of source material itself is problematic and there is a lot done wrong. There's also a lot of filler and despite these dialogues very liitle of essence is actually told (also the story is weighed down by the fanfictiony elements of the script writers invention that add nothing of value to more concise book story).
Anyway the playing with timeline in the show is indeed very badly done, the books occassionally do this sort of non-linear storytelling, the first tome of short stories are actually all told in a sort of flashbacks interjected with the framing device 'current' story of Geralt healing from his wounds in temple of Melitele and his memories coming to reflect upon his life, the later books also use at times a sort of flashback scene to explain a detail, for instance the Time of Contempt book uses the scene of Geralt and Yennefer in bed recalling the particular scenes from the congress like conversation with Vilgefortz etc. that Geralt tells Yennefer about, but the other events are told straight up in real life as they are happening....so it makes way more sense in book.
"'Is one of those people Vilgefortz?'
'How curious,' the sorceress squinted her eyes, 'that it's him you're asking about. Yes, Vilgefortz asked to meet you and speak with you. I must warn you that this talk may appear trivial and light-hearted, but don't let it fool you. Vilgefortz is an experienced and intelligent player. I don't know what he wants from you, but stay vigilant.'
'I will be,' he sighed. 'But I doubt that this experienced player of yours will be able to surprise me. Not after all the things I've gone through here. I've been apprehended by spies, drowned in dying reptiles and ermines. I've been fed non-existent caviar. Nymphomaniacs with no interest in men have doubted my manhood, threatened me with rape on a hedgehog, pregnancy and even an orgasm of the kind that does not require any movements. Ugh...'
'Have you been drinking?'
'Only a bit of white wine from Cidaris. But there was probably an aphrodisiac in it... Yen? After my talk with Vilgefortz can we return to Loxia?'
'We won't go back to Loxia.'
'What?'
'I want to spend this night in Aretuza. With you. Aphrodisiac, you say? In the wine? Interesting...'
***
'Oh my, oh my,' sighed Yennefer, stretching on the bed and laying her thigh onto the witcher's. 'Oh my, Oh my, my. It's been so long since I've made love this way... So very long.'
Geralt disentangled his fingers from her heir, but didn't reply. Firstly, because he feared the hidden provocation in her statement. Secondly, because he didn't want the words to wipe the taste of her pleasure from his lips.
'It's been so long since I've made love with a man who would profess his love for me, and whom I would love back,' she murmured after a while, once it became clear that the witcher wasn't going to fall for the trick. 'I've almost forgotten what it feels like. Oh my, Oh my.'
She arched her back even more, stretching her arms and clutching at the corners of the pillow, and the sight of her breasts basking in moonlight sent a shiver down his back. He embraced her and they lay motionlessly, silent and still in the afterglow.
Shrill cries of cicadas could be heard from outside, as well as the faraway voices and laughs, indicating that the banquet was not yet over, despite the late hour.
'Geralt?'
'Yes, Yen?'
'Tell me about it.'
'About the talk with Vilgefortz? Now? I'll tell you in the morning.'
'Now, please.'
He stared at the little cabinet at the corner of the chamber. Books were piled on it, sketchbooks and other items left by one of the students temporarily evicted to Loxia. Supported by the books sat a plump ragdoll in a frilly dress, rumpled by the excessive hugging. She left her dolly, he thought to himself, to be spared ridicule in Loxia's dormitory. She left behind her beloved doll. And now she's probably unable to fall asleep without it.
The doll's button-eyes stared back at him. He turned his gaze away.
When Yennefer was introducing him to the Chapter, he watched the wizardly elite closely. Hen Gedymdeith gave him just a single, weary look - it was clear that the banquet had already managed to tire the elderly man. Artaud Terranova bowed slightly with a dubious grin, leading his gaze from him to Yennefer, but it quickly melted under the glares of other people present. The azure eyes of Francesca Findabair were impenetrable and hard like ice. The Daisy of The Valley smiled when they were introduced to each other. Her smile, beautiful as it was, had terrified the witcher. Tissaia de
Vries, seemingly busy with constantly improving her cuffs and jewellery, smiled a lot less beautifully but considerably more warmly. It was Tissaia who initiated the talk first, recounting one of his
chivalrous witcherly deeds, which he couldn't recall and which was probably made-up.
And then Vilgefortz joined the discussion. Vilgefortz of Roggeveen, the wizard of impressive posture, magnificent beauty and sincere voice. Geralt knew that people with his looks were completely unpredictable.
They spoke shortly, feeling the concerned looks directed at them. Yennefer's for the witcher. Vilgefortz, in turn, was gazed at by a sorceress with kind eyes who was constantly trying to hide the
lower half of her face with a fan. They exchanged a few conventional comments, after which Vilgefortz proposed moving the talk to a more secluded place. Geralt was under the impression that
Tissaia de Vries was the only person surprised by this.
'Have you fallen asleep, Geralt?' urged Yennefer, breaking him out of his thoughts. 'You were about to recount to me your talk with Vilgefortz.'
The doll was staring at him down from the cabinet.
'Once we've entered the cloister,' he began, 'That girl with a strange face...'
'Lydia van Bredevoort. Vilgefortz's assistant.'
'Yes, right, you've mentioned it. The person of no importance. Well then, once we were in the cloister, said person of no importance stopped, looked at him and asked him something. Through the
use of telepathy.'
'It wasn't a breach. Lydia cannot use her voice.'
'I thought so. Because Vilgefortz didn't answer in the manner. He said...'
***
'Yes, Lydia, it's a great idea,' said Vilgefortz. 'Let's take a walk through the Gallery of Glory. You'll have the honour of taking a peek into the history of magic, Geralt of Rivia. I'm sure you know
it well, but this time you'll see it visualised. If you're a connoisseur of art, it may terrify you. Most of these paintings were made by the enthusiastic students of Aretuza. Lydia, be so kind and let some light in this shadow.' "
And so on...this above if the taste of how it is done in the book.
So, to everyone talking about "how could you mess up something like this with a pre-established fanbase by trying to do your own thing?" (first of all, yes, what the heck Hollywood. I think the same thing, but yeah). Anyway, I saw someone bring this up and I think it's interesting to think about. Doesn't justify, but still interesting. So they mentioned that a big cause of this might be the drive to produce something. Like, most people who will get into some aspect of producing media or whatever, will have something that they want to create, some project that they want to do. That's fine, but right now most media, like Disney, is only interested in producing pre-established things and doing sequels and whatnot for "guaranteed" revenue. The bigger companies don't want to take risks on new things so they just try to squeeze out every penny from their properties and get the new guys to do all this. So these new people can't produce something new (what they want to do) unless they have a reputation, but they can't build reputation for their stuff because they're not given the chance. So what do they do when they're given a project that they're not interested in? They try to make it interesting to them (and most of them are failing horribly at it). Like, it's stupid and everything, but understandable.
Idk, while I'm still upset at what seems to be every single "adaptation" now being just a horrible mess, I think that thought process kind of helped me to understand why the industry is the way it is right now. Like, still don't like that this is happening and I try to speak with my wallet and whatever, but yeah. I guess it helped me empathize. Not agree, but empathize. I mean, if that's what's really going on behind the scenes even. Who knows *shrug*
To me, if that's the case, just hire the people who want to do the project and then profit?
I remember when everyone complained about the actress for yennefer, and she has been such a trooper with this script. All the actors did their best. PAY WRITER THEIR FAIR SALARY
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good Joke! Shit Writing is what made Henril Cavill quit and why the show sucks.
Fair salary for writing this shit, should be $0.
@@RosieSquall well it was actually the current situation
Season 1 of the Witcher covers the first two books. They are a series of short stories that bounce around, non-linearly. So I don’t know that I’d blame the show for that.
Season 1 is the only season that gets close to following the books. I’m not unhappy about it.
0:53 I ain’t got rhythm!🎶
I honestly don't understand why writers refuse to follow the source material. Like, it's already there. It's fool proof and a fan favorite. It's the reason people are watching your show in the first place. Literally your only job is to adapt it to the screen. That's it. You don't need to add anything to it because it's perfect. And you still manage to mess it up? Seriously, they have to be a special kind of stupid to manage to fuck this up.
While I think it's fine to diverge from source material, you need to have a strong vision/plan of what changes you're making and why. Just look at Heart of Darkness ---> apocalypse Now. But Witcher sadly did not have a plan
This is a video analysis well done, I see a flood of TH-camrs bashing Witcher with same three reasons and milking the shit out of it. Feeding to the dislike of the audience, but you didn't resort to cheap tricks, you explained it beautifully and explored the "how it could have been" without just bashing the show. KUDOS!
Thank you!
People based it be aue they read the book and play the games, this shows contradict the lore and plot of the source material. Its like watching the lord of the ring but with gandalf struggling with gollum to throw the ring on to lava
Nice Les Miserable reference. Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my head for the next hour.
First Person to comment on it NOICE! Also, weirdly, I'm now just realizing if this show had been made a decade or so earlier, Hugh Jackman would have been a top pick for Geralt. Can't say if he would be good or not, but he'd definitely be the top pick for studios
HOLY CRAP, I always thought that pilot in Dunkirk WAS alright!
Jeez
My husband, not having read the books or played the games like me, was totally lost with the time jumping.
As a fan of the books (and games), I like when I find video like this explaining in a very accurate way why something is bad or pretentious. I watched the first season to see how they were gonna butcher the all thing. it just felt pretentious with no talent at all. It was the most frustrating, angering show I ever saw.
To be fair to Netflix's writers, as much as I hate it, the short story books that S1 is based off of did the non-linearity thing, mostly because the writer at the time of writing them, didn't fully intend for the stories to actually be a long-form writing. It just sorta happened. That being said, on the release of the books, the stories were re-written slightly to give a general overarching theme to the series to provide a little more consistency in the non-linearity. Most importantly for Netflix, because they were following-ish to the books for S1; they dropped major important thematic choices, consequences, motives, and dialogues from multiple incredibly important scenes because they are poor writers. Thus, what followed was a needlessly messy non-linearity dump of mediocre quality because they couldn't be bothered with accepting that someone did their job better than them before them. Also, penis armor.
Penis armor existed in real life if you like it or not. But I don't remember seeing them in Witcher.
@@LukiKruki I think he means the season 1 nilfgaardian armor and it's weird ass design
I remember when season one came out and it took me an episode or two to realise that it was 3 timelines and I have a friend who still didn't realise after finishing the show
I feel like the show runners watched the first season of Westworld and we're like 'ooh that's a good idea!' It's the main thing I found fault with the first series. Just felt so disjointed with no payoff.
I watched The Witcher seasons 1, 2 and 3. I hated the time jumps in season 1! They were confusing and muddled. I was trying to understand when Geralt was at Cintra. I didn't realize the young blonde woman and the hedgehog man were Ciri's parent's until she annouced she was pregnant with hedgehog man's child. I thought to myself " Those two are Ciri's parents, Now I get it!" So, because of that scene with party I realized that Geralt was in Cintra ten years before the main story started, but there was never indication of that! He was shown to bein Cintra when the Nilfgard army attacked, but that was only shown in a later episode, not in the episode that showed the initial attack. I hate it, when shows and movies don't establish when something significant happened. The Witcher did this multiple times. I blame the writers and the producers though. You did really good analysis of how they screwed up the non linear story telling with giving examples of how Nolan and Tarantino did it better in their movies.
Thank you!
Since I watched season 3, I got this frustrating feel that I coudn't pinpoint about the whole thing.
It felt... pretentious.
When Geralt held that damn sword that way to that girl’s neck in season 1, I had to accept these mfs wanted this shit as flashy as possible 😭 Even the game doesn’t ham up those slow mo finishers like this show brings the ham 😭🍖
Anya looks like she was just saved from getting pickled alive.
I forgot that I was completely confused by the non-linear story because it was a magical land. I remember seeing characters throughout the earlier episodes and wondering why they weren't dead or if someone was an imposter only to realize the timelines weren't linear and it never really clicked to me why it was so hard to follow. I continued watching it and figured it out but it was definitely not the most clearly laid out storytelling. I compare this to Christopher Nolan's Memento which is one of the first movies I'd seen like that and it was all very clear how he was telling the story. I think it's pretentious in the "I know something you don't know" sense from the director and studio.
It’s idiocy. Half of episode 7 is just a shot for shot of episode 1 in order to ‘tie’ all these timelines together.
And by season 3 they still didn’t understand how to make that ‘perspective’ repetition work. Absolute hack writers trying to emulate Nolan, on record I might add.
Hahaha. Anakin @ 5:42. I know this is off-topic, but love how the Clone Wars is finally become more recognized.
Same. I've been a die hard fan since S1E1 "Ambush". I've got a pretty solid string of videos planned, but I can't wait to do a video all about the Humanity of the clones, focusing primarily on the Tragedies of Domino Squad.
The show is initially just about Geralts Monster of the week. It evolves into this more complicated story beyond that (kind of like several dr who seasons btw). The reveal that Ciri is the child surprise cannot come at the beginning of the show.
This is is not unusual, to show several story lines, and only later reveal how the are connected. For example see Magnolia. Here one of the twists is that the story plays in three different times, which is also not revealed right away (but they way they did it is kind of sloppy - depending on how much attention u pay to the dialogue, you may notice earlier or later, there isnt a clear moment of reveal of the chronology).
All of these scenes immerse me into a fantasy depiction of medieval East Europe.
I thought I had a stroke when I watched episode 5. I had to rewind to realize that they put the same scenes twice and with only a little bit of extra content. Then I was confused as to why they did that since they added nothing to the scene except runtime.
The most important thing is that the viewer should not feel that they are being cheated
Things have to make sense in one scenario and in the other
For me this is also the huge difference in Westworld Season 1 vs Seasons 2/3/4
Where I new they were hiding information from me the viewer
In season one I was surprised by the surprise itself, then the context changed afterwards without me able to predict it
Great video 👍
"false sense of mystery" reminds me of that awful anime trope where a character will say something fully to another, but only the lips move. Then, later on, it is revealed what they said.
It's like: the writer so desperately wants to have information that's revealed later, but has no idea how to actually build up the story to that point. Different being manga is often written by one guy in his bedroom living on ramen, and this was written by a whole staff of writers.
The Witcher TV show feels like the first draft of someone trying to write the Witcher books from memory.
can someone send this to the writers of the Witcher. I mean at this point its too late but hey we can hope.
The Witcher tried to be and could’ve been like Game of Thrones but it failed
Fall of Cintra in the beginning would have flattened the death of Lioness. She was my favorite thing in the first season. I enjoyed the first season as it is, even if it was bit of a mess.
Papa G.
yeah, you got me there.
Westworld season 1, two time lines? Amazing work.
I never understood why viewers stuck to this show. The books are better.
Netflix and Disney don't deserve to work on such ips they have proven to be the worst
What stinks is that these are some of the few companies with the money and influence to get the rights to these ips. They’re banking on recognizable source material as a “safe” investment instead of trying new things.
@@Asteroids50 won't save them if people turn away just playing witcher 3 at the moment and if u compare what u get here with Hollywood or other stuff u see what is possible and how far away all these big companies are from delivering worthy stuff people will invent new stuff far superior to any IP they call their own in a way the best thing that can happen we should thank Netflix that they are helping birthing a new movement
@@abstragento0087 I think people are turning away. I’m really sick of the Netflix model and The Witcher Season 3 kinda felt like my last straw. Hopefully, this will result in some new media that takes risks and actually cares about the audience.
@@Asteroids50 Are people cancelling their Disney and Netflix subscriptions though? Viewing figures don't really matter if the subscriptions are still there as the money is still flowing in. They don't need every show or movie to be a hit - it just needs to be good enough for subscribers to not cancel.
@@donkeysunited Disney and Netflix aren’t required to share their exact subscriber counts, so it’s hard to tell. Apparently Disney has lost 4M subscribers in the past 2 quarters and Netflix has also lost subscribers. Indiana Jones 5 and Elemental have barely made back their budgets so I do think that is a bad sign for Disney, but I don’t know if people are leaving the platforms in big enough waves to make an impact
I am someone that HATES spoilers and I can honestly tell you that I was itching to see this show from season 1 epi 1. But After all the "horseshit" (like Geralt says in the show), im done with this below "fan-made" quality piece of shit show. I FORCED myself to watch the first 3 episodes and couldnt even finish the first half of the third season. I've watched so many videos with negative reviews of the show and honest DO NOT EVEN CARE about seeing any spoilers. I hope the directors get life-long bad publicity from ruining this show because ONLY to their GREED.
NOTE TO FUTURE DIRECTORS DIRECTING SHOWS FROM BOOKS: -----> FOLLOW THE FUCKEN BOOKS. IT HAS A HUGE FAN BASE PRE-SHOW FOR A REASON.
I hope HBO picks this IP up somewhere in the future. I know they'll do a way better job at adapting the books than Netflix
Completely agree. Netflix dropped the ball hard, and then tried to spit blame on its audience. Their writers have a lot of problems and apologizing they need to do.
Wow that pulp fiction footage made me totally forget this video was about the Witcher
I remember when season 1 dropped, and people were trying to defend the non-linearity by saying audiences were too stupid and lazy to follow it. No. It was just unnecessary, distracting, and poorly done.
It's easy to crap on the writing, but the production, set design, and make-up do zero favors either. Characters seemingly don't age despite being decades older. Most locations look vaguely similar. Every region is incredibly diverse for taking place in a feudal world where horses and walking are the primary modes of transportation. There are almost no visual cues to where you are or what time it is. The point has been made to death by this point, but this is something Game of Thrones did incredibly well from the start. And House of the Dragon did it even better once time jumps came into play.
The Witcher is a big-budget show, and almost every aspect of it feels small and cheap. It's poorly envisioned, managed, and executed from the top down. It's such a waste, especially with such a great lead. The casting for Jaskier and Yennifer are great too. Yenn was used increasingly poorly, but that's not the actress's fault.
S3 was trash so far, but i actually think the timelines in S1 were a good thing, at least for Geralt. It allowed for more of the short stories to be included, which was one of the strong points of the Witcher
YES! This is my biggest complaint about this show. The time skips just confused me and to this day I still dont understand the story.
I first watched the Show and loved it. I think it is a good and fun to watch show. But After every season I forget the content of the season and I never understood the story. I loved the series because it was fun to watch as fun little independent episodes. But I didn't catch the story. I first needed to read the books to finally understand what is going on. My friends experienced the same
I'm going to be honest. I didn't know they were trying different timelines... which explains some of my initial confusion - I played a little of game 1 & 2 and much more of 3 (not really managed to read the books) so I didn't have that as a reference in truth....
I gave up on the series relatively early after meeting Triss for the first time and... where is my beautiful red..? This ALONE wouldn't have been the end of the series for me, but together with everything else... that was the breaking point
The last duel also had very good non linear story
Very much agree
I HATE non-linear storytelling. In my opinion, it joins the ranks of first person POV in books in that it should essentially always be avoided because the story could almost always be told better without it. BUT, just like first person POV, there are *extremely rare cases* where it really is the best choice, and it really gives the book/film the extra oomf it needs.
Just finished the video and you sir just won a subscriber.
Keep up with the good work
I’m glad someone is excellently criticizing this gigantic screw up. Those writers should be ashamed. They simply had to adapt the books to television, not rewrite things to fit their own personal political agendas and narcissistic opinions of their own ideas being better than the original creator.
Nice analysis!
Thank you!
THANK U FOR BRINGING THIS UP 😂
Happy to!
I saw season 1 and found myself wondering wtf was the point of all the different time jumps
and never saw season 2 lol
As a non witcher person (heard of it but never read or played it) season 1 sucked. It was confusing as hell and half the time I didn't know what was going on until near the end. It was horribly planned and frankly while it has gotten better... not enough
I love Pulp Fiction, and I also really like the Witcher S1... I didnt think the time stuff was bad at all. I disagree with basically everything you said on that. S2 and 3 though, they sucked.
I hope the writers and directors of Witcher see this.
Not saying that The Witcher series is any good but comparing it with an original script film like Pulp Fiction is not really fair.
The audience knows how things turn out (well, if they've read the books). To achive what Pulp Fiction did, it is necessary that the viewer doesn't know anything about the plot in the first place.
Some of the Witcher books are more of a collection of short stories - before, in between and after the ciri plot line. I actually thought mixing it up like they did in season one made sense to stay true to the books. But you are right, it felt stretched and rushed at important parts.
Also non-linear storytelling in Nolan movies isn't always working out that well either. Not sure why you picked 'Dunkirk' but that story doesn't really benefit from that non-linearity.
I mean, from the Nolan movies Memento (the movie is literally backwards), Interstellar (time is relative) and Oppenheimer (history closes in on itself) really used it to serve a purpose beyond it being an artsy way of telling a story.
The Batman triology is pretty linear and Tenet and Inception are an overcomplicated mess, so people can feel smart if they think it has any greater meaning. I bet it is fun to make these movies from a film-theoratical point of view - but it often doesn't make it better, just more complicated.
Most of all the Netflix Witcher adaption suffered from unnecessary story changes, weird cast choices (excluding Henry Cavil here - he kinda nailed it) and a too clean look and feel (you can't just tint it grey - the production design must be bleak and dirty, too).
The show was made for a wide, uninvolved audience and tried to copy, what game of thrones did. It feels uninspired, generic and outright cheap - so yes, they failed.
Still one of the most successful Netflix series which also is very telling. I guess thats what the mob wants.
Very good material, thx💪🏼
Thanks
The Netflix interviews with the staff gives quite a bit of insight into the minds of the showrunners. Their main focus is to make the show and the scenes look "cool". It seems they didn't really give things much thought beyond that.
The non lineal timeline wasnt really clear until the forth or fifth episode.
When witcher show was first released, I had no previous knowledge of the world or its characters. I did not play games, I did not read the books.
And I had absolutely no idea of what is happening, watching the show. It was just a mess. The time skips did not make any sense for me, I had no idea what the witcher actually is (that he was not born like that, that it is not just a profession) and I managed to watch several episodes hoping it will make sense later - it did not.
So I abandoned that, read the books. And after that, I understood how bad the show actually was.
cmon if you could figure out by episode 4 of the nonlinearity of it then that's on you. I think it could have been made more obvious but it makes sense if you watch at least halfway through season .
@@ethan6627 I did realize the skips, but it is very hard to understand the scale if you have no idea that your main hero does not have the normal human lifespan, you know?