Overclock.net banner

[OCN][IGN] Netflix to produce the Witcher TV Series

16650 273
Thread was closed, but I wanted to necro it.
I would be so thankful if a mod could do that for me and toss this post last in that thread :D

I saw the newer trailer:

December 20th.

:D

sources:
https://www.overclock.net/forum/227...90-ign-netflix-produce-witcher-tv-series.html
https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/17/netflix-to-produce-the-witcher-tv-series
61 - 80 of 274 Posts

·
Graphics Junkie
Joined
·
4,474 Posts
The amount of monsters and magic usage just slay GoT's potential for me. Not saying GoT wasn't chalked full of other interesting things, but I personally feel the potential for exciting story and battles is much higher in this show. Even the few episodes I've seen have had moments that trump all of GoT's best.
I'm glad your enjoying the show but it's no where near the production value of GOT. It's an apples to oranges comparison. GOT is on a totally different level, especially when it comes to the battle scenes.
 

·
Gamer
Joined
·
3,670 Posts
I'm glad your enjoying the show but it's no where near the production value of GOT. It's an apples to oranges comparison. GOT is on a totally different level, especially when it comes to the battle scenes.
Well....It's HBO vs Netflix...This is to be expected, no?

GOT's last three seasons proved to me production value means nil without a proper plot. The last two Star Wars films also made me remember this fact.

The Witcher season 1 is close to Season 1 of GOT's production values. Season 2 of GOT there was an obvious bump up in production budgets.
 

·
Graphics Junkie
Joined
·
4,474 Posts
Well....It's HBO vs Netflix...This is to be expected, no?

GOT's last three seasons proved to me production value means nil without a proper plot. The last two Star Wars films also made me remember this fact.

The Witcher season 1 is close to Season 1 of GOT's production values. Season 2 of GOT there was an obvious bump up in production budgets.
I mean, it's not though. Theses a massive descrepency in the quality of one vs the other. Again, that doesn't mean one is overall better than the other but let's be realistic here. GOT is on a much higher production level from the start.


And speaking of, I'm not a huge GOT fan or anything but I liked the ending. It seemed practical which I liked. A happy ending wouldn't have made any sense for that show.

I don't think I makes sense to say production value doesn't matter. When using star wars as an example, production value is the only thing of value left. It's the only thing keeping people interested.
 

·
Gamer
Joined
·
3,670 Posts
I mean, it's not though. Theses a massive descrepency in the quality of one vs the other. Again, that doesn't mean one is overall better than the other but let's be realistic here. GOT is on a much higher production level from the start.


And speaking of, I'm not a huge GOT fan or anything but I liked the ending. It seemed practical which I liked. A happy ending wouldn't have made any sense for that show.

I don't think I makes sense to say production value doesn't matter. When using star wars as an example, production value is the only thing of value left. It's the only thing keeping people interested.
I think you need to re-watch Season 1 of GOT...I watched that season at least 14 times, they're on equal terms of production values in my eyes for sure. But, ONLY that first season though, after that GOT's production and budget went up nearly every season.

Also production value definitely does matter, but it doesn't matter alone and I personally would prefer a quality story to quality production values. If I could only pick one.
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,406 Posts
lol netflix and production values? has anyone looked at the 99% trash they put out?

hire one known(?) name in the cast and re-use previous cardboard sets; it's sci-fi channel with "mature content."

really this series has more of the starz channel production . . . could have benn alot better, we'll see in season 2.

and they should have more than 8 episodes. i have to problem investing some time to get a plot but c'mon, within the first 60 seconds he kills a monster but then eats bambi (it's just not your day)- it's not that hard to figure out.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,237 Posts
I'm on episode 3 and have not had any trouble following any of the show so far....I also played W2 + W3 so I'm familiar with the world already. So I don't know what some of y'all are confused but it's pretty straight forward for someone who's familiar with the world.





Which plot points specifically are y'all talking about?



Yennifer's?



Geralt's?


The time jumps are the most confusing. It was just hard keeping track of what was happening when.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
I'm glad your enjoying the show but it's no where near the production value of GOT. It's an apples to oranges comparison. GOT is on a totally different level, especially when it comes to the battle scenes.
Yeah but the production value doesn't make the world anymore interesting. That's why I think for me, Witcher will win by default. It's just more interesting.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,410 Posts
The time jumps are the most confusing. It was just hard keeping track of what was happening when.
I loved the jumps. It was confusing at first, but only for a brief moment. After you under stand the timelines happened at different times, it fits nicely together and gives you the most important details of the characters pasts.
 

·
Still here...
Joined
·
10,076 Posts
I watched about half the series thus far and honestly kind of like it. I've never played any of the Witcher games, nor read any of the stories; but don't mind series that jump around from timeline to timeline as long as all the pieces fit together toward the end. I can see where the sort of timeline jumping around in this series might bother some, especially during the same one hour segment and all-of-a-sudden sort of way it's been done here.
 

·
waifu for lifu
Joined
·
13,705 Posts
So the series is mixed at best?
 

·
Original 16-bit Genesis®
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
The Witcher is not Game Of Thrones. I'm not sure why that's a comparison.


The time jumps are ok except for maybe one episode where they jump frequently. It starts to click the longer you watch though. The pace is kind of ok, they haven't really gotten to the point where the games actually start. But I'm guessing the development speed is because Netflix didn't have confidence and only ordered 8 episodes.
 

·
Skating Enthusiast
Joined
·
8,191 Posts
The time jumps are the most confusing. It was just hard keeping track of what was happening when.
Yeah, I was confused but I'm guessing this is faithful to the books. It'd have been nice to see some sort of date flash up on the episode to give the viewer an idea of the time period. I watched the first episode and someone notable died, and then next episode or two they were alive again and I was like wth didn't you just die? I finally realized what was going on.
 

·
Not a linux lobbyist
Joined
·
2,925 Posts
Discussion Starter · #73 ·
The girl he had sex with in the first episode... That was awkward af. I mean he just met this girl and then next thing you know, they have sex. I played the Witcher 3 so I get what's going on. It's not hard to follow the key plot points but with so little character/plot development, everything feels like it's happening just for the sake of moving the plot forward as fast as possible.
That part was totally relatable. Who hasn't had sex with some girl they just met, it was awkward af, then you wake up in some unfamiliar place trying to piece together what happened and mull over some weird crap she was saying last night. For me the chick wanted to cut my hair. That didn't happen then, but in the future, sure enough I cut my beautiful hair. Now I'm bald. Much more relatable than stabbing people with swords.

I liked the first one a lot. I'm really going to try to make the 8 last more than a month.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,107 Posts
Yeah, I was confused but I'm guessing this is faithful to the books. It'd have been nice to see some sort of date flash up on the episode to give the viewer an idea of the time period. I watched the first episode and someone notable died, and then next episode or two they were alive again and I was like wth didn't you just die? I finally realized what was going on.
I wish they would at least have put something up on the screen denoting how the different story arcs were different times. Spent the first 3 episodes getting POed about Ciri being about the same age as Yennifer. Thought they were really butchering the stories up. Wasn't until episode 4 where an off hand comment informed me that there was a 30 year time-skip in the Yennifer arc before I realized it, but I'd wager those who hadn't read the books or played all the games (reading all the books in game) still don't have a clue about it.

Hopefully this isn't qualified as a spoiler but I can't remember for sure, but I think Geralt and Yennifer are actually close to the same age, aren't they?
 

·
What should be here ?
Joined
·
20,055 Posts
I like the show and am able to follow what is happening well enough. If I'm not, I can google. But Cavill is the Witcher for me.
 

·
professional curmudgeon
Joined
·
10,406 Posts
I wish they would at least have put something up on the screen denoting how the different story arcs were different times. Spent the first 3 episodes getting POed about Ciri being about the same age as Yennifer. Thought they were really butchering the stories up. Wasn't until episode 4 where an off hand comment informed me that there was a 30 year time-skip in the Yennifer arc before I realized it, but I'd wager those who hadn't read the books or played all the games (reading all the books in game) still don't have a clue about it.

Hopefully this isn't qualified as a spoiler but I can't remember for sure, but I think Geralt and Yennifer are actually close to the same age, aren't they?
yeah they're close in age. but i have to say; you didn't get the flash back? if yennifier is older than ciri then how or what else would it be but a flash back if she was same age or younger?

i only know about the characters from playing TW3 but it just seemed natural to me to understand that there is so much back story to tell before moving on. once i freed my mind, my asre soon followed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,107 Posts
yeah they're close in age. but i have to say; you didn't get the flash back? if yennifier is older than ciri then how or what else would it be but a flash back if she was same age or younger?

i only know about the characters from playing TW3 but it just seemed natural to me to understand that there is so much back story to tell before moving on. once i freed my mind, my asre soon followed.
lol, I thought they were going way off from what the books say. Hence being PO'ed.
 

·
Skating Enthusiast
Joined
·
8,191 Posts
I wish they would at least have put something up on the screen denoting how the different story arcs were different times. Spent the first 3 episodes getting POed about Ciri being about the same age as Yennifer. Thought they were really butchering the stories up. Wasn't until episode 4 where an off hand comment informed me that there was a 30 year time-skip in the Yennifer arc before I realized it, but I'd wager those who hadn't read the books or played all the games (reading all the books in game) still don't have a clue about it.

Hopefully this isn't qualified as a spoiler but I can't remember for sure, but I think Geralt and Yennifer are actually close to the same age, aren't they?
It'd have been good. I'm not sure how people unfamiliar with the series will manage. I played the first two games a lot, and did a playthrough on the third, and I've read some of The Last Wish as well. So I know many of the characters and some of their backstories, but yeah it still took me a bit to realize what was going on.

I'm not sure... I always thought Geralt was around 120-150 by the end of the books but that could be completely wrong. No idea about Yen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
The "time jumps" (that aren't really in a way) were a nice strategy to be able to get on with the story of Ciri from the get go, which is what they wanted.

The whole story of Geralt in this season is made up from short stories. Why? Cause the first 2 books are a collection of short stories (the very ones from each episode, they tweak them, but this first season has been pretty damn close to the books in just about every aspect, from tone, to characterization, to the stories themselves, which are only changed in more or less superficial ways (with Yennefer being an exception, more developed on the show)).

The "main" story, which is the story of Ciri (who we could say is the core character, even though Geralt is the protagonist we follow along), is told from the third book onward, which are novels, one continous story. On the first two books Ciri is but named on the "child of surprise" story.

So what they did for the show, since they wanted to start with all the characters from the get go, as opposed to just doing Geralt, Jaskier, and a bit of Yennefer, is this "time jumping" (which again, I don't really think of it that way). So they start Ciri from the get go and just mix it up with the "backstory" of everybody else until that third book starts.


As far as I'm concerned, granted as someone that read the books a good decade ago (we had them translated to spanish long before the games blew up and they finished translating the books into english), I can't but approve of the strategy to structure this first season.
And in fact I quite enjoyed it, very much finished it wanting more.
 

·
Padawan Overclocker
Joined
·
2,867 Posts
The "time jumps" (that aren't really in a way) were a nice strategy to be able to get on with the story of Ciri from the get go, which is what they wanted.

The whole story of Geralt in this season is made up from short stories. Why? Cause the first 2 books are a collection of short stories (the very ones from each episode, they tweak them, but this first season has been pretty damn close to the books in just about every aspect, from tone, to characterization, to the stories themselves, which are only changed in more or less superficial ways (with Yennefer being an exception, more developed on the show)).

The "main" story, which is the story of Ciri (who we could say is the core character, even though Geralt is the protagonist we follow along), is told from the third book onward, which are novels, one continous story. On the first two books Ciri is but named on the "child of surprise" story.

So what they did for the show, since they wanted to start with all the characters from the get go, as opposed to just doing Geralt, Jaskier, and a bit of Yennefer, is this "time jumping" (which again, I don't really think of it that way). So they start Ciri from the get go and just mix it up with the "backstory" of everybody else until that third book starts.


As far as I'm concerned, granted as someone that read the books a good decade ago (we had them translated to spanish long before the games blew up and they finished translating the books into english), I can't but approve of the strategy to structure this first season.
And in fact I quite enjoyed it, very much finished it wanting more.
Since you are familiar with the books, with the pace of season 1, how many seasons would it take to finish them all ?
 
61 - 80 of 274 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top