I'm looking forward to watching it this weekend. I enjoyed the books.
Was it PG enough for a 13 year old to watch?


Team Dandelion!

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

There is nothing PG about this show.

---

Steve

We've not binged it. I wanted to watch mulitple episodes but was soundly voted down by assembled throng for family Christmas

i will say that i think they've done a good job of setting up the dark nature of this story line. Wish i spoke Polish so could read books in primary material

There are no good choices. Just choices amongst evil choices.

Much like "The Expanse" seems to be following the source material


have great weekend

/r

---

Steve

Gonna have to wait till tomorrow night to start. Damn free booze work party :D



Remember, carrying 2 swords always is a game thing. At least in the early stories, the silver sword is stashed on Roach until he knows it's needed. He walks around with the steel sword.

But I've only read the first few books.

The books mention his steel sword being for regular human/animal fighting and silver for monsters.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

This

I thought?

---

Steve

And the dwarf that’s forges him the perfect sword for his style of fighting hymn?

---

Steve

There can be a certain elegance to violence. In life or in show. I’m hopeful this show delivers.

---

Steve

I finished up the season. Solid show. I really enjoyed it and think it has a lot of potential to get better. I'm looking forward to the next season.

I was not familiar with the source material (books or game), so came into it cold. Without discussing any spoilers, I'll just say the way it was presented made it difficult. Will discuss more on that maybe after its been out awhile and folks have had a chance to see it.

Not sure how my experience would compare to someone who knows the backstory. My understanding is the writer/director took parts of both books and game universe and tried to bring them together. No idea on specifics though. But if you are coming into it without any background, expect to be a bit lost through at least half the season.

Only major scene I had some logic issues was final episode in the castle battle. Holding comments on that too for now.

Cast are all good in their roles. There's a splash of campiness at times, but not too much. Other times it gets really dark and serious. A good helping of swordplay, magic, gore, violence, nudity, etc..


.

I've only finished the first 4, but it's heavily weighed twords the books. Specifically the first book (a collection of short stories).
Episode 3 and 4 were easily picked out by me. 3rd ep is also the opening cinematic of the first game.
The only big choice that I've found to be game weighed is Cavill's performance. Geralt is stoic in both, but chatty in the books.

binged it over the last couple of days

First bolded I'm in complete agreement coming from the same view. Doesn't help I was in and out of consciousness for a couple of episodes and only rewatched bits of them.

Second bolded - I had quite a few logic issues. I guess when magic is involved they can do anything they want, but some continuity would be great.

Completely off-topic, but Cavill is a really good looking dude and has the perfect build for his frame. Won't be enough to get me more than two episodes into S2 though. Needs to improve or I'm out.

Just got done binge watching the first season. I enjoyed it, hopefully Netflix decides to see the storyline through.

Currently on episode 5, its good so far my only complaint is the timing is very confusing. Half the story takes place in the past and the other half is the present. Hard to follow.

how difficult would it be to put "30 years ago" as the lead in to the episode? tv shows trying to be too smart imo. i don't want to have to think that hard when I'm watching a show that involves the seemingly unlimited powers of magic. lack of continuity and consistency will turn off the casual viewer.

This is what I was eluding to above. Most of the show we are watching three different timelines surrounding the backstories of Gerault, Yennifer, and Ciri. I agree it felt unnecessary to not make this clear. As you said, the director was trying to get cute with it.

Seems as though the timelines all come together at the end, so hopefully we're done with that for future seasons.

.

This is my big complaint.

I did not play the game or read the books and have no idea what is happening with the timeline of the story. Just freaking tell me so I don't spend all my time looking at my wife asking WTF is going on.

Can someone maybe give me the cliff notes?

serious question? have you watched the entire season and still confused about the continuity? although hard to follow i thought the timelines came together by the end. The only time I was super confused is when one of the characters turned from monster to human and looked exactly like Ciri, but then i saw the nip and thought no way could it be her, assuming she was underage. Don't want to say much more than that due to spoilers.

Obviously, spoilers. I needed the same explanation to understand what was going on.

https://www.vulture.com/...ology-explained.html

Try these:

https://www.vulture.com/...-is-the-witcher.html

https://www.vulture.com/...ology-explained.html

Yes, serious question. We are only through episode #4. It became somewhat obvious we were looking at different time periods.

After the 2nd episode I have been reading the summaries of the episodes before I watch the episode. It helps quite a bit. I didn't realize there were two different time periods going on in the first episode. It is kind of a giveaway but not much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher_(TV_series)

would agree with post just before this. check wiki for the episodes you have seen. it really does come together by the end as well.

I'll give you a hint that shouldn't spoil the actual story.

The Queen that dies at the beginning is the same woman that doesn't want her daughter to marry the hedgehog, but relents. The Witcher is the one that brings the 2 together. The book explains how that happened but the show leaves it out, for now. That bonds the Witcher to the Queen.

Her daughter and husband are dead in the present and the girl that is seen with her is her grand daughter that she has raised. The books tell how they died but the show hasn't revealed that yet, so I'll leave that out. That transfers the Witcher's bond with the Queen to the grand daughter, and that is really what the story is about.

Also, Yeniffer is the hunch backed girl, so if Yeniffer is running around it is near the present, or the present, and if the hunch back is around it is the past.

---

"...the street finds its own uses for things"

Books were written (in Polish) quite some time ago. Film adaptation is being fairly faithful to the books. You start a new chapter in books and it’s a adventure to figure out where you are geographically and time wise.

If that’s to hard for you that’s ok. Just bad mouth the show and bow on out.

---

Steve

As the others have said, it does come together at the end of the season.

That horse you’re riding these days sure is pretty high isn’t it? Forgive me for giving my opinion on a show that it seems to be near and dear to your heart

Don’t be talking about Roach like that

---

Steve

i knew i hit a sore spot when the patronizing comments, which had already been stated in self-deprecation anyway, were made towards someone giving their mildly critical opinion of a tv show. based on fantasy fiction. and a video game. You're the goddamn Witcher. it all makes sense now.

Haven’t been able to watch past 15min and I really like sci-fi and fantasy.

It's all good brother. Critiquing film adaptations of books is a time honored tradition. I've been 'all in' on discussions online throughout the whole Peter Jackson adaptation of the LotR (not even going to mention that later adaptation); also on film adaptation of the Expanse books (bless Bezos for picking the franchise up and carrying it forward)

On Netflix's adaptation of The Witcher, I've no problem with the skipping of time and geography as I've already worked thru that personally while reading the five main books of the Geralt/Ciri/Yenn story line. I can easily understand how a casual viewer would be confused.

In terms of "cannon" in the world Sapkowski created my only (small) bitch is the lack of silver swords for fighting monsters versus good dwarven steel for use against men.

There's a cottage industry of 'outrage' on some forums about some elves being black. Personally I was somewhat taken aback at first, but upon reflection--who is to say there can't be black elves? It's a fictitious creation to begin with so.....?

---

Steve

I finished the show and I enjoyed it, I also read all the books so I didn’t have the confusion about the time differences. I think they did a good job setting up the show for future seasons, you know the 3 main characters and their back story. Yes it would’ve been nice to give dates or something for the different time lines. My 2 things I didn’t like was one like Steve, the 2 swords, seems like an easy thing to do and adds to how the Witchers are different. The second was, why didn’t they call the bard character Dandelion like the book? Is Dandelion not PC, so you need to call him Jaskeir.

I hear you on the naming thing. Don't know why film show builders do the things they do some times? Michio Pa was just fine in my mind on The Expanse. Somehow she got turned into Carmina Drummer? Whatever.

Why change Dandelion's name from canon? Only thing I can think of is what film makers of "Deadwood" wrestled with. Apparently, there was a LOT of cussing back then in them there woods. But to us, these modern days, the cussing back then would just sound silly and stupid to us in our modern times. So the film makers 'updated' the 'cussing' to modern terminology.

So perhaps? this is why Dandelion has been changed?

---

Steve

So in the 1800’s they didn’t say “cocksucker,” ever third word? One of my favorite shows ever Deadwood.

Hoopleheads gonna fuck up


Still on team Yenn. Triss is a girl you'd spend a fun weekend with.

---

Steve

Drow (dark elves) are pretty standard fantasy fare. But of course drow elves are not what is depicted in the Witcher. My beef with the elves that I saw on Witcher is that they look, talk, dress exactly like humans. The only differentiator is pointy ears.

.

Don't touch Roach.

I guess in the Polish, it's Jaskeir.

Thanks for the answer :-)

A third. There are three timelines.

Yen is old. In book canon, she is 90 when Niflguard invades Cintra.
She's in her 40s when she meets Gerald in the show (in the books, it's never mentioned)

Geralt's age is never said in the books or games. He's assumed to be around 65. In interviews, the director of the games said around 100, the author said over-50.

In the books, Ciri is 10. Freya Allan is 18! They made her look about 14 IMHO.

Dandelion is 34-book years old as of the sacking of Cintra/Battle of Sodden Hill. He's got to be older in the show, but I guess he could have been mid 20s before Ciri was born.

If I had to guess, Yen's story took 75-80 years. Geralt's story took the last 20-ish years. (spoiler) and Ciri's story takes place entirely in the last episode (/spoiler)

Jaskier literally translates to Buttercup flower. The author wanted a 'flowery' name for the bard but because buttercup has an excessively woosy connotation, the translator chose to go with Dandelion.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

Well you do see him carry two swords once in awhile and I think you see them strapped to his horse.

Yes you definitely do see him with the 2 swords, but ever fight scene he uses the silver, the only time he doesn’t is when using someone else weapon. It’s a small nitpicking thing I know.

So are we talking early seasons of GOT / Spartacus or is it more normal R-rated levels of sex & violence?
I know it is a personal choice what people let their kids watch so maybe I just need to watch an episode or 2 while on the trainer.

My son (13) is also asking to watch this.

WAY less than Spartacus.

Think more 80s action movies. Lots of violence, occasional topless woman (almost always Yen)

In the game he wears two swords, but I read in the books he only wears one sword and keeps the silver sword with Roach.

Just finished watching it and I really enjoyed it overall. Henry Cavill was great as Geralt. Looking forward to season 2. In the mean time I think I’ll see if the books are at the local library and start to read them.

---

Matt

I envy your coming journey. There are five main books that comprise the arc of Geral/Ciri/Yenn storyline.

Written some time ago. In Polish, so translation is occasionally awkward. The story line can be somewhat problematic. As you start each chapter it's a adventure to figure out where you are in terms of time and geography. It's just the way Sapkowski wrote the books. Film adaptation has been fairly faithful to canon so you'll be somewhat ahead of the game. When i first read thru the novels it took me a while to figure out what was going on. I"m not the sharpest knife in the drawer but i do eventually get there.

It's really good SiFy Fantasy fiction.

enjoy.

---

Steve

Just finished watching. Thought it was good . The last episode was awesome.

Finished the first season recently, and have to say, I was not overly impressed but also not overly disappointed. I'll caveat this by admitting that I haven't read the books, and likely won't (fantasy isn't my genre).

I had no problem with the shifting timelines. I thought it was actually well executed and led to some "Oh, so that's what's happening" moments as the series moved along. That aspect might have been difficult to figure out if I watched them one episode at a time over several weeks, instead of mostly back to back.

The acting is mediocre. Cavill does what Cavill always does. He moves like a body builder, gives a little smirk, and doesn't say much. Might be appropriate for the character, but it doesn't take much acting ability.

Lots of critics were talking about this being a competitor with Game of Thrones, but I would say it's not in that league in terms of performance, writing, intrigue, production value, etc. That's not to say it's bad. It doesn't take itself quite as seriously as GoT. There's a little more PG-13 humor added in to soften it up.

Overall, maybe it could be considered like a PG-13 fantasy series compared to GoT as an R-rated series.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

So a review of a series you don't really care about. From a genre you don't care to read about. From a type of book & film you don't really watch or read all that that much?


I can understand shipboard curmudgeon. But you're not afloat?

---

Steve

I don't tend to read fantasy. Doesn't mean I don't care to watch. I didn't read the George R.R. Martin books either, but that doesn't mean I didn't watch GoT.

I tend to read more science fiction. That said, I didn't care for the TV adaptation of The Expanse books, probably because I read those, and TV rarely lives up to the books.


Not sure you're the right one to accuse anyone else of being curmudgeonly.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Fair enough brother

let me give you a clue here tho. The hair pulling in The Wheel of Time series get so long that film writers had to bring a writer in to finish up the books when the 'writer" died.

If you've read all five novels of The Witcher series then i welcome your comments within that discussion;

your curmudgeon status is well established herein

---

Steve

Really enjoyed Season 1. There are some flaws, but overall I think it was really well done and faithful to the books and the characters. Looking forward to more.

the gwent game on the phones is pretty addicting too. (I liked it in W3 as well).

I am no super pro at Gwent but I did manage to beat the Bloody Baron. It was a close run thing.

---

Steve

I think this would have been very helpful. My wife was always asking, "Is this in the past?".

I THINK the show was done like this so you would watch it again. I just finished season 1, and it wasnt until a couple episodes in I realized everything was time jumping.

The season only being 8 episodes long + the next season coming out in 18 months + being geared towards "fans" + being on a streaming, leads to it being available this way.

I am going to assume before the next season launches, they are going to release a linear version.

I like how Sapkowski injected central European / Slavic ideas, locations and creatures into his fantasy giving us a fresh take on the fantasy genre (though still grounded in the canon fantasy universe created by JRR Tolkien).
I read the books in English though I'm fluent enough in Polish to be tempted to find a Polish copy just to see how the untranslated story flows.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

My brother read the first book and said it was also no linear. I started listening to it today and the first story mirrors the opening of the TV series. I'll probably give the TV show another watch after I finish the book.

Do the books give clues / state when things are happening? It would be confusing AF in book form without that.

The books are also non-linear. It took me a while to figure that out. Once I did--as I started each chapter the first two questions were: Where am i in timeline; and where am i geographically. Once I'd figured that out it was kinda fun to guess where the author was dumping you as you started each chapter. So the show was a snap in that regard.

---

Steve

No, and it would be significantly more confusing reading them if I had not seen the TV show first. I'm on the first book and I'm hoping the others are linear. The first book is a collection of short stories, similar to the TV show.

map of the Witcher realm. Warning: will require you to enable cookies

https://www.witchernetflix.com/en-gb

I watched one episode. Wasn't paying enough attention. Need to watch it again.

Watched the first episode this morning. I know know nothing about the books or game. But the episode did enough to grab my attention, and I'm a fan of Henry Cavill.

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Just pounded through it in 2 nights. Was very well done.

How'd you like the books overall? I'm thinking of reading them next since I'm eventually going to finish the current book I'm on. My brother has read the books some time ago and he liked them but I haven't decided to take that plunge yet.

As is in virtually every case, i found the books far superior to the film adaptation. Having said that, i really liked the film adaptation and am working my way back thru them by myself---as all family here at Christmas during our original viewing so lots of commentary & questions while viewing. So am enjoying it all by myself this week with frequent playbacks

The books are simply wonderful for the genre of fantasy, and I'd say even approaches high fantasy what with the extent of world creation, breath and time.

I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, so as i was reading the books i began to realize---"this doesn't make any sense within a historical timeline, unless the author is............ahhhhh!" So for me, the film adaptation adhering to the world creators sense of time was a pleasant surprise and one i easily followed.

---

Steve

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the books/writer originally in written in Polish or something? Do you find the translation to English confusing at times or pretty easy to figure out what the intention was.

Yes. The original short stories and novels were written in Polish. I wish i could read them in original Polish but that's about as likely to happen as me to play a violin as well as 'Jack Aubrey."


It's great fantasy fiction. Even in English translation.

---

Steve

So Steve, you seem to be pretty up on Fantasy, I had always leaned to the more hard core Sci Fi genre, so how far on the scale is this series? Not until the last 10 years or so did I even venture into this realm, is this along the lines of that movie Cloud Atlas? I actually loved that movie, the jumping around in time, and how it all came together in the end. So I grow closer and closer to the fabricated worlds stories, but still have trouble with some that just go too far(for me that is). Stuff where you have to learn a new made up language, or something that is just 100% in fairy land, stuff like that. Guess I'm too lazy in my imagination, and just get bored with trying to learn the new realities.

I will give the Series a try, just want your expert opinion where on the fantasy spectrum it is before I proceed..

I'm not expert in fantasy--my expertise lies elsewhere.

So i will immediately defer to anyone with a literary background or expertise in the area. I'm just a consumer who knows what i like.

IMO

Within the genre of high fantasy you have to start with Tolkien and the world creation he did. It's a master piece.

So where does Sapkowski fit on the modern high fantasy realm?

We'll lets put Tolkien on the far left (he hated machines, 'progress,' and pollution.). On the far right I'm gonna (get into trouble for this) and put Jacquilene Carey's Kushiel's Legacy series (and even three more that follow). So Carey invents a fantasy world with history, magic, beasts and high drama/quests--extensive geography and a sense of time within the story. The only things she did NOT do was invent entire languages---which J.R.R. Tolkien did AND THAT'S A BIG THING--this invention of entire languages and cultures to buttress your world creation.

Under my construct you have Tolkien on the far left exemplifying "Classic' high fantasy; and on the right you have Carey's "Kushiel Legacy" exemplifying the far right of "Modern" High Fantasy. [There's is nothing political about this artificial designation]

What set's Carey's world creation apart from Tolkien's? At the end of the day what separates Carey and Tolkien ( or modern and classic fantasy) is the adherence to culture. What is available to be storied and what is not. So you'll find sex, fashion, and (gasp) internal angst among its heros' -not so in Tolkien

What are you going to find in reading Witcher or watching it onNetflix adaptation? Well the Netflix film adaptation is necked down considerably from the viloence, sex, rape and general mayhem in the original novels/short stories.

God Bless and Speed Christopher Tolkien on to a final peace. He was the caretaker of this father's invention. While flying Spitfire's in South Africa during WWII, Christopher offered feedback and criticism as his father wrote the LoTR amidst WWII; while remembering what he'd ensured on the Somme.


/r

---

Steve

Thanks Steve, in spite of your reluctance, you make a great reviewer.

But you did confuse me even further. Your mention of the Tolkien series brought back childhood memories of loving those books, but haven't read them since. So I wonder if I read them like I watched the old sci fi series, Voyage to the bottom of the sea, Land of the giants, Star Trek, and the talked about here, Lost in space. I was just not sophistacated enough as a lad to see the clumsiness of the acting and production, and even the writing of those shows, but loved them dearly none the less. I would hope to think I could still appreciate those stories, but I did avoid all the movies, as well as the Harry Potter sagas. But finding myself now contemplating reading her books to my oldest son, as so many of my friends have done over the years, and spoken highly of...

Thanks

Re: Tolkien. Not "Classic" high fantasy, but Victorian high fantasy - which I concede that he was born in the Victorian age, he died WELL after (1973) and wrote mostly post WW2. He framed fantasy through the lens of WW1 (he fought at Somme) and a longing for the past.
Tolkien, like Victorian writers, wrote others as caricatures of non-English. Orcs are "in fact degraded an repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least loved Mongol-types".

The Witcher isn't based on the English Victorian ideals, being Polish ;) . Lots of people say he wrote more in a Grimm vein - i.e. Central European during the end stages of the HRE. Which makes sense as those stories were Dark.

I'm still trying to figure out what is the purpose of confusing the audience for half an hour or more before they say "oh shit, this was in the past."

Does leaving out the "30 years ago" lead the view/reader to some understanding or viewpoint that they would not have had if "30 years ago" was added?

So far i cannot conceive of any extra insight that the confusing presentation imparts. The presentation does impart an emotion that would otherwise not exist; frustration and anger.

Now if at the beginning I was told "scenes not presented in chronological order" and was told when scenes began, then I could enjoy guessing what the timing was. I've watched 6 of 8 and intend to finish because I enjoy the characters.

Time is real and matters in any story. I'll edit my post when I've finished if (or not) I come to find any merit to the surprise timeline approach.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

You can hardly go wrong reading to your children--anything. Rowling, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis's Narnia series. All great fantasy

Our son is fully grown now. A navy man. We have a rolling book reading club of two. We'll pick out a book (History) and read it together meeting online every couple chapters to discuss the author's thesis,the strength of his argument and evidence. Last couple rotations in Afghan it was the highlight of my week when we'd meet on facetime to discuss our current book reading.

We're currently embarking (a good nautical term) on Hornfishcher's "Neptune's Inferno: The US Navy at Guadalcanal"

---

Steve

Interesting. I'd not thought of it in terms of "Victorian" era fantasy. Is that a real thing within the historiography of high fantasy? In the literary world? I've no idea. Historiography would indicate that authors being influenced by their current culture and times would tend to write in a certain manner. Yet you have someone like Le Guin who writes the Earthsea series (world creation high fantasy) and her's ticks backwards towards Tolkien in terms of style and content.

PS: I'd not thought of it but your point about the darkness of Sapkowski's writing being similar to Grimm fairy tale's grim (no pun) nature seem's spot on. Sapkowski is from Poland that Grimms' were from central Deutchland but I suppose both could be influenced by dark Teutonic nature.

---

Steve

I finished the first Witcher book and in it, time was irrelevant because the book was a bunch of short stories. The story of Geralt invoking the law of surprise takes place, but you never hear about the child again. I think the non linear timeline was a mistake.

I don't think that is really the first Witcher book. Blood of Elves is the first book that involves the real story arc I think.

The Last Wish wasn't the first book written, but it is first chronologically.