I don't disagree but it did help to sort of reinforce the notion for the dim people like myself that destiny isn't just a theme or a notion but seemingly a powerful force in this world.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The Witcher |OT| Something More (Dec. 20th Netflix) - TAG SPOILERS WITH EPISODE
- Thread starter WadiumArcadium
- Start date
- OT
This shows humor was definitely made for me. I even laugh when Geralt does one of his substitute conversation grunts.
I mean that's basically just one and a half episodes though before they make it pretty clear that the show isnt showing concurrent events. Seems like a minor thing even for viewers not familiar with the characters.
I felt that she would be a more likable character based on her portrayal in the books. The show is accurate though. You do not become warrior-queen without some serious character flaws.
It's meant to be ambiguous, yes. However, in the last episode of the show,
the Council of Sorcerers laugh at Stregobor for believing that Renfri was cursed/evil.
I feel that episode
about Djinn
Compared to Episode 1, Episode 2 felt kinda rough.
Too much budget looking CG and special effects / weird cuts to follow-up scenes, I imagine most of the budget went to hiring Cavill because damn. The goatman and the bard too, didn't like them at all.
You're comparing wildly different shows with wildly different budgetary needs.
Why wouldn't Narcos look better? Making a shot set in the near past is a lot easier than creating a fantasy world populated by creatures you see regularly. If you don't have unlimited time and money, some stuff is just not going to look as good. That's the realities of production and post.
To me, they did a really good job with the hardest stuff—the CG for the monsters is pretty good, especially when they appear in much more challenging conditions to hide flaws. The comp work and matte paintings are weaker, but there wasn't really any stuff that took me out besides having a professional eye. They even do a decent job hiding the fact that they can't have the Spanish army trotting around for battle scenes.
Still really think the cheap look complaints are exaggerated. There's some dodgy CG but some beautiful shots, too.
Same. The humor is great. Even Yen gets some good lines.
Same. The humor is great. Even Yen gets some good lines.
I'm on episode 6 now, and still really enjoying it.
I love what they're doing with Yennefer. It was nice to see her get her own spotlight and story/character established before meeting Geralt. I also like what we've seen of Triss so far.
Ah. Fair, I suppose, but geography wasn't really important there I don't think, besides giving you some impression of the paths characters took through the world. Nothing was changing hands, the world was not going through a grand transformation. I think they're generally pretty good about giving you the names for places that matter. Cintra, Temeria, Aretuza, Nazair, the Yaruga, Sodden. All places where geography is quite important and we actually get told about those names.
pam param
The sound on this seems really low. Tried watching the first episode and I have the volume 2x what I normally watch stuff on and can't understand a word of what they are saying.
Ye, for large part series is very good about name dropping locations and mapping them out through dialogue and visual exposition.
Lack of it all just stood out in that episode and couldn't place it in my mind because of that :b
The thing is there's no real reason for it and there's not even any particularly interesting flair to it either. There's not really any meaningful it adds to the story for it to reveal that it's being told out of order. It's just sort of there to create a "twist" out of thin air.
It's meaningless to people who have read the books or played the games, because the instant someone calls the girl at the beginning "Cirilla" you know exactly when it is, and to people who are engaging with the story for the first time this way it's needlessly confusing. There's zero reason it couldn't have been explicitly labeled with dates. It's not even elegantly handled visually, there's zero difference between the way the different scenes are shot, no editing techniques to imply that things are happening at different times, anything that could make it fun
Yes, the show is poor letting viewers know this. It was very disorienting for someone like me who is well aware of the proper sequen
It's some new and hip Netflix thing apparently. I don't get it either.
Honestly, I think it was filmed this way specifically to give characters, who aren't Geralt, more screen time and something to do for the season, otherwise most of them would only show up for an episode or 2 tops, and Ciri basically wouldn't be in the show until the very end of the season.
I started noticing it a few years ago I think in A24 films that were doing it. I remember thinking there was something wrong with my eyes.
Finished and really liked it, can't wait for season two.
Pros:
Good casting and characters
Good action choreography
Strong soundtrack
Liked the story for the most part outside of a view pacing issues
Cons:
Some rough CGI
Time jumping can be a bit confusing at first
Some weird lighting here and there
Also I can see the lore being a bit confusing for newcomers because it kind of just dives in.
Overall a damn good 8/10 show for me, room for improvement but it lays a solid foundation.
Pros:
Good casting and characters
Good action choreography
Strong soundtrack
Liked the story for the most part outside of a view pacing issues
Cons:
Some rough CGI
Time jumping can be a bit confusing at first
Some weird lighting here and there
Also I can see the lore being a bit confusing for newcomers because it kind of just dives in.
Overall a damn good 8/10 show for me, room for improvement but it lays a solid foundation.
I've really enjoyed first 2 episodes.
Although they-re nothing groundbreaking, i had great time.
-Henry Cavill looks and sounds great but his delivery is sometimes super corny.
-The sword fight in ep1 was pure hype.
-Production values are highand it shows. Apart from shitty looking Nilfgaardian armor and super fake Elven ears, everything looks great.
-Yennefer is the highlight of the show so far.
As a fan of this universe, i can say that this is a very solid adaptation so far.
Although they-re nothing groundbreaking, i had great time.
-Henry Cavill looks and sounds great but his delivery is sometimes super corny.
-The sword fight in ep1 was pure hype.
-Production values are highand it shows. Apart from shitty looking Nilfgaardian armor and super fake Elven ears, everything looks great.
-Yennefer is the highlight of the show so far.
As a fan of this universe, i can say that this is a very solid adaptation so far.
I'm like please don't try and show a dragon, please don't try and show a dragon. They tried to show a dragon and oof it was bad. This episode was also my least favorite in terms of story. I've been enjoying it up until this point so hopefully the last two pick back up
They were only good as conduits. Like the flowers that were used to power magic spells. Not good enough to be sorceress like they were looking for. Enhances the magic source of the school. Yeah pretty fucked up.
Yen has very high potential.
Yen has very high potential.
Yeah, Yennefer is a standout.
Again, this is nothing new or "hip". It's a preference for a specific type of lens or lens characteristic usually associated with vintage lenses.
It's not new at all. It's an optical artifact that appears on certain lenses that has slowly been phased out as lenses have become more precise. Some filmmakers appreciate its aesthetic qualities - as the world of cameras have become more digital and clean, there's a desire to bring back some roughness to the image. In the same way film grain and lens flares are deliberate style choices that could be perceived as errors of the image, an imprecise lens adds character and grounds the whole thing a little bit more. Would you also say "I don't understand the point of 4k if it's covered in film grain anyway?" No, it's another aesthetic decision that you can appreciate and observe all the more at higher resolutions.
If I had to guess, shows like The Witcher and The Mandalorian use this stuff to make the world feel more tangible to counter the artifice of the fantasy world. It ties the whole look together.
Hah, you're right, but I didn't really think of it as a spoiler since that is just info from the episode. 😁
I wanted this to be a GOT killer for my own reasons. Not because of what Hissrich said.
Episode kinda explains it yes, but later on it really explains it in detail.
They should consider patching in some year text for the three timelines for newer viewers.
I think if I didn't know that Yen and Geralt were slow to age from the Witcher 3 I would've been slightly more confused. It wasn't till episode 2 that I realized that Ciri and Geralt were at different times and then surmised that Yen was also in the distant past.
but yes episode 3 it's pretty clear that they're in three different timelines although if you were looking at your phone or something, I guess you would still be confused
I think if I didn't know that Yen and Geralt were slow to age from the Witcher 3 I would've been slightly more confused. It wasn't till episode 2 that I realized that Ciri and Geralt were at different times and then surmised that Yen was also in the distant past.
but yes episode 3 it's pretty clear that they're in three different timelines although if you were looking at your phone or something, I guess you would still be confused
Just finished through Episode 4 and I'm loving this. The story is interesting, the characters are interesting or entertaining, the acting is solid throughout the cast, the sets and cinematography are good to great, and there's just enough unique elements to make feel more than just generic fantasy while still being familiar enough to understand with little to no primer.
I have to disagree. I'm a viewer who has never read the books and played maybe half of Witcher 2 and about 2/3rds of Witcher 3. I'm not over steeped in the game OR the book lore. BUT, I'm an avid reader of Sci Fi and Fantasy (probably average somewhere in the neighborhood of 30~ genre books per year over the last 5 years). There was nothing confusing about the way the series switched perspectives and the reveal comes clearly and early in the middle of the 3rd episode. It wasn't jarring and it didn't feel like a twist or unearned attempt at shock. It was just an, "ahh so that's how they're telling the story of these perspectives."
I don't think the show needs to blatantly state any of this and I don't think they needed to or should have used film techniques to hint at it either. It's executed in the way a novel would and I don't think that's a bad thing at all. It may not be what many people are used to because they're not novel readers but it's still effective enough for anyone who actually wants to understand as opposed to wanting to passively watch. This isn't to say that anyone who is confused or bothered by it is "bad" in any way but that experiencing it in this way isn't a bad thing even if they don't like it because they're not used to it.
It's ok if people don't like it. That some people won't like that aspect of the storytelling does not mean the show executed it poorly. It just means those people don't like it.
The show is good. Better than average in Genre television and even with breakout hits like GoT and The Expanse existing, the fact is better than average is extremely rare for Genre. So rather than tear the show down for not being at the very top echelon of television, it should be appreciated for what it's achieved because whether or not it gets it's showrunner-estimated 7 seasons to complete, it can stand as an example that Genre doesn't have to be either "so bad it's good" or "absolutely amazing." There's a gradient of middle ground that is both entertaining and can prove certain techniques as viable. Future shows can gain from this one. Audiences can grow (even if only slightly) in their understanding and appreciation of different styles of storytelling through this show. That alone makes it more than worthwhile, I think.
That said, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to say or imply anything negative towards or about anyone who just plain doesn't like the show due to its techniques. How one receives it is subjective after all. I'm just saying that not liking it shouldn't be extrapolated into "this was done badly."
I have to disagree. I'm a viewer who has never read the books and played maybe half of Witcher 2 and about 2/3rds of Witcher 3. I'm not over steeped in the game OR the book lore. BUT, I'm an avid reader of Sci Fi and Fantasy (probably average somewhere in the neighborhood of 30~ genre books per year over the last 5 years). There was nothing confusing about the way the series switched perspectives and the reveal comes clearly and early in the middle of the 3rd episode. It wasn't jarring and it didn't feel like a twist or unearned attempt at shock. It was just an, "ahh so that's how they're telling the story of these perspectives."
I don't think the show needs to blatantly state any of this and I don't think they needed to or should have used film techniques to hint at it either. It's executed in the way a novel would and I don't think that's a bad thing at all. It may not be what many people are used to because they're not novel readers but it's still effective enough for anyone who actually wants to understand as opposed to wanting to passively watch. This isn't to say that anyone who is confused or bothered by it is "bad" in any way but that experiencing it in this way isn't a bad thing even if they don't like it because they're not used to it.
It's ok if people don't like it. That some people won't like that aspect of the storytelling does not mean the show executed it poorly. It just means those people don't like it.
The show is good. Better than average in Genre television and even with breakout hits like GoT and The Expanse existing, the fact is better than average is extremely rare for Genre. So rather than tear the show down for not being at the very top echelon of television, it should be appreciated for what it's achieved because whether or not it gets it's showrunner-estimated 7 seasons to complete, it can stand as an example that Genre doesn't have to be either "so bad it's good" or "absolutely amazing." There's a gradient of middle ground that is both entertaining and can prove certain techniques as viable. Future shows can gain from this one. Audiences can grow (even if only slightly) in their understanding and appreciation of different styles of storytelling through this show. That alone makes it more than worthwhile, I think.
That said, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to say or imply anything negative towards or about anyone who just plain doesn't like the show due to its techniques. How one receives it is subjective after all. I'm just saying that not liking it shouldn't be extrapolated into "this was done badly."
