Netflix "The Witcher" Series - Season 2 now Streaming

[Deadpulse]

19 hours ago, Edge said:

I can't really agree with the takes in this thread, but that might also be the case, because i'm a book fan first.

I have a lot of problems with this season, but first i want to list the things i liked. I loved the main characters and actors. Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri were all great. For some the story wasn't the best, but the actors did a tremendous job. I loved the side characters as well. Jaskier was great and showed a more serious side of his. Rience, Dijkstra and Philippa Eilhart were introduced in a very good way. I loved Rience especially and despite the fact that they changed the way of how his face got burned, i liked it here as well. That was a fun scene with Yennefer and Jaskier. They also changed Triss hair, to make it look more like in the games, but it does fit the character better. So that was another good decision. I also liked their decision to keep Istredd. It will be interesting to see where they will take it with him, as he's not playing a part of the story in the novel series, but i can see why they kept him and i do think he has a place within the story. He's a good character, so that was one of the few changes, that i liked.

But besides that i got huge problems with the 2nd season. I tend to say that i liked the 1st season more than the 2nd one, due to the story. Ofc the 1st one was a a little bit confusing and challenging for the viewers, but the storyarcs were more or less close to the books. The 2nd season did change the story quite a bit and that caused some main problems.

Let me start with the reason, why they probably changed up a lot of things. They probably did that, because in book 1 of the novel series, there wasn't an intriguing end. The story focused on character developement, which probably would have been to boring for the series and the viewers. So i get why they introduced a new antagonist for this season, who btw. has no foundation in the novels at all. Ciri does have struggles, but with her dreams. We saw a glimpse of it in a scene between Ciri and Triss Merigold. Unfortunately nothing else came out of that scene. Why? That's a main point within book 1. Triss isn't strong enough to deal with it and help Ciri, so Geralt writes a "dear friend" letter to Yennefer and asks her to help Ciri, which she does.

Here starts my main problem: Character development.

I never get the feeling, that the relationships between Ciri and Triss, but especially Ciri and Yennefer is as close as it should be. Triss should be like a big sister to Ciri. We did see that relationship develope a little bit, but not enough. At least more than the relationship between Ciri and Yennefer. In the books Yennefer is very severe with Ciri, while traininig her. At the same time, she's caring for her and they start to love each other as mother/daughter. In the series nothing of that is shown. At the end Yennefer wants to die for Ciri, but we never can understand why she would do it, as we never saw their relationship getting this close. Yennefer suddenly appears at the temple of Melitele, but they get immediately attacked by Rience, so they flee. Half an episode they walk to Cintra, and get rescued by Geralt in the end and than we directly jump to the end. There was nothing for them to bond. That was so disappointing, especially since they portrayed all 3 of them as a family in the end. We just never see and get why Yennefer and Ciri get that relationship. They did a solid job, through to implement the relationship between Ciri and Geralt, although he should have been the one to train her and not Lambert.

Talking about the witchers, this is another point i didn't really liked. The story of Vesemir was made up as well. The story of Eskel was made up as well and they did him very bad by killing him off in the same episode, they introduced him. What a shame. He's not playing a role in the novel series for the main story, so that decision would have been ok, but why would they kill him off in the episode, they introduce him? If you change it, than create at least a good story. Show the viewers, why they should care about this character and build up his relationship with Geralt and Vesemir, before killing him. That was bad writting.

Another point i really didn't liked was the revelation of Emhyr var Emreis as Ciri's father. Yes that's according to the books, but in the novel series we get that revelation at the end of the story. Emhyr is a huge secret throughout the story. No one really knows his intentions. All the time it's pure speculation and just in the last book it gets revealed, that he is indeed Ciri's father. How he survived should be explained later. Unless they mess that up, it should make sense. I also get why the show runners decided to reveal him earlier. In a series it's tough to have an antagonist, who never gets shown on screen. I just think that they could have build up the mystery for 1 or 2 more seasons. Maybe reveal it in season 4, after we're midway through the series. You get an even more shocking revelation.

But Emhry won't be the only antagonist. I'm not spoiling you, who the other one will be, but if they do it right, they should reveal him at the end of the next season.

At last i want to say, that they also made up the entire story of Yennefer losing her powers. They probably did that, because they made up so much, but i think there was no need for it. I think they could have still told that story, they made up, but just with a more powerful Yennefer, who could have trained Ciri a lot better, if she actually had kept her powers. Btw. in the novel series, she burned Rience face by using her powers, so that was the change i talked about earlier.

In the end the 2nd season was solid. Not as bad as it might sound, but they wasted a lot of potential. That's disappointing to me. They needed at least 2 more episodes to showcase the relationships between the main characters, especially between Ciri and Yennefer and i think if they had told that story good enough, i could have accepted other developments and changes, because some did make sense to spice up the story from book 1 of the novel series. They only did Eskel really, really dirty.

Nevertheless i'm going to watch the next seasons. I'm just to much of a fan of the novel series, to miss seeing certain events unfolding on screen. I hope that the series will do a better job in the next season. After the 1st book, the novel series should offer enough events to cover and build up as intriguing storys. The ending of the next season in particular should show focus on one of my favourite storyparts, so there should be absolutely no need to change up the story even more.

Honestly, all your complaints or pretty moot. I get that you prefaced it by saying you are a fan of the books, but that doesn't change the fact that what you didn't like had nothing to do with the TV series and everything to do with the books. As an avid comic book reader, I am here to tell you, learn to look at them as two separate entities. It's not hard to do. 

besides that, they focused on building Geralt and Ciri's relationship first - correct decision. They barely touched her magical training, there is PLENTY of room for Yen and Triss to develop a relationship with her down the line. I inferred Yen's willingness to sacrifice herself as more to do with her relationship with Geralt than with Ciri. I think your precursory knowledge forced your perspective away from Yen's character motivations in the show. 

[Edge]

4 hours ago, Xenos said:

I think you’ll see more of the book’s relationship between Ciri and Yennifer in the third season. At least that’s what I hope happens.

I hope you're right and they start the next season like they started this season, by building up the realtionships. Especially now that they have the most important characters at one place. I don't mind to get some Ciri + Jaskier scenes as well.

 

4 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

Honestly, all your complaints or pretty moot. I get that you prefaced it by saying you are a fan of the books, but that doesn't change the fact that what you didn't like had nothing to do with the TV series and everything to do with the books. As an avid comic book reader, I am here to tell you, learn to look at them as two separate entities. It's not hard to do. 

besides that, they focused on building Geralt and Ciri's relationship first - correct decision. They barely touched her magical training, there is PLENTY of room for Yen and Triss to develop a relationship with her down the line. I inferred Yen's willingness to sacrifice herself as more to do with her relationship with Geralt than with Ciri. I think your precursory knowledge forced your perspective away from Yen's character motivations in the show. 

Like i said it was an overall solid season. Not GOT season 1-4 like great, but a solid fantasy series. Although the most of my problems with the season go back to the missed potential, not all of my points are solely based on the fact, that i know the books.

The whole situation with Eskel was bad writting. Introduced in one episode, killed of in the same episode. A character that we briefly saw, who supposedly had a deep connection with Geralt and Vesemir, which we weren't able to see. Well we did get one small scene after his dead, where we saw that he and Geralt seemed to be friends. In the end we could never really build a connection with the character to understand the loss Geralt and especially Vesemir must have felt. Why not exploite these relationships at least a little bit more, so the viewers can bond with him before they kill him off? Why let him come in like a douchebag (supposedly because of his fight with the leshen, which infected him)? You could introduced him like a friend, a great dude, that has a bond with Geralt. Then you could have make them fight at the end of that episode against the leshen. We, but nobody else notices, that he gets infected and then in the following episode we get his transformation, which results in his death. I think there was enough room to showcase it in a way, that we recognize, that he was a great dude and someone Geralt and especially Vesemir cared about, instead of portraying him like a douchebag.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Edge

[Deadpulse]

6 hours ago, Edge said:

I hope you're right and they start the next season like they started this season, by building up the realtionships. Especially now that they have the most important characters at one place. I don't mind to get some Ciri + Jaskier scenes as well.

 

Like i said it was an overall solid season. Not GOT season 1-4 like great, but a solid fantasy series. Although the most of my problems with the season go back to the missed potential, not all of my points are solely based on the fact, that i know the books.

The whole situation with Eskel was bad writting. Introduced in one episode, killed of in the same episode. A character that we briefly saw, who supposedly had a deep connection with Geralt and Vesemir, which we weren't able to see. Well we did get one small scene after his dead, where we saw that he and Geralt seemed to be friends. In the end we could never really build a connection with the character to understand the loss Geralt and especially Vesemir must have felt. Why not exploite these relationships at least a little bit more, so the viewers can bond with him before they kill him off? Why let him come in like a douchebag (supposedly because of his fight with the leshen, which infected him)? You could introduced him like a friend, a great dude, that has a bond with Geralt. Then you could have make them fight at the end of that episode against the leshen. We, but nobody else notices, that he gets infected and then in the following episode we get his transformation, which results in his death. I think there was enough room to showcase it in a way, that we recognize, that he was a great dude and someone Geralt and especially Vesemir cared about, instead of portraying him like a douchebag.

Eskel appeared in 7 episodes 

[Edge]

13 minutes ago, Deadpulse said:

Eskel appeared in 7 episodes 

I think u mixed him up with either Coen or Lambert. Eskel was the Leshy and appeared only in episode 2 (were he was killed off) and as a flashback in episode 3

[Xenos]

6 hours ago, Edge said:

I think u mixed him up with either Coen or Lambert. Eskel was the Leshy and appeared only in episode 2 (were he was killed off) and as a flashback in episode 3

I haven’t read the books. But maybe Vesemir is essentially replacing the Eskel character.

[Deadpulse]

6 hours ago, Edge said:

I think u mixed him up with either Coen or Lambert. Eskel was the Leshy and appeared only in episode 2 (were he was killed off) and as a flashback in episode 3

He's credited for 7

[Edge]

9 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

He's credited for 7

Mhm. probably more short flashbacks then or when he was playing the dead one?

But whatever, in the end he was introduced and killed of in the same episode (2). You can tell the greatest backstory afterwards, it won't have an impact on the initial death scene. That might change in a rerun, but watching it the 1st time if the backstory gets told afterwards it won't matter. Through ofc. his backstory here wasn't really told afterwards either, besides the one flashback scene in the next episode (3) with Geralt and him.

9 hours ago, Xenos said:

I haven’t read the books. But maybe Vesemir is essentially replacing the Eskel character.

He doesn't have a huge role in the books, so you can replace him easily. So my criticism of the character isn't based on the books, but on the fact, that he was killed off immediately after he was introduced.

[Xenos]

17 hours ago, Deadpulse said:

He's credited for 7

Yeah that’s weird. He shows up briefly in a flashback in episode 3. But I don’t know how he’s credited for 7.

[sammymvpknight]

On 12/27/2021 at 4:15 AM, Edge said:

I hope you're right and they start the next season like they started this season, by building up the realtionships. Especially now that they have the most important characters at one place. I don't mind to get some Ciri + Jaskier scenes as well.

 

Like i said it was an overall solid season. Not GOT season 1-4 like great, but a solid fantasy series. Although the most of my problems with the season go back to the missed potential, not all of my points are solely based on the fact, that i know the books.

The whole situation with Eskel was bad writting. Introduced in one episode, killed of in the same episode. A character that we briefly saw, who supposedly had a deep connection with Geralt and Vesemir, which we weren't able to see. Well we did get one small scene after his dead, where we saw that he and Geralt seemed to be friends. In the end we could never really build a connection with the character to understand the loss Geralt and especially Vesemir must have felt. Why not exploite these relationships at least a little bit more, so the viewers can bond with him before they kill him off? Why let him come in like a douchebag (supposedly because of his fight with the leshen, which infected him)? You could introduced him like a friend, a great dude, that has a bond with Geralt. Then you could have make them fight at the end of that episode against the leshen. We, but nobody else notices, that he gets infected and then in the following episode we get his transformation, which results in his death. I think there was enough room to showcase it in a way, that we recognize, that he was a great dude and someone Geralt and especially Vesemir cared about, instead of portraying him like a douchebag.

Let me assure you that the non-book readers had no problem with how they handled Eskel, or any of the points that you made. That is literally always the problem that book readers have with series...that things are rushed and details are left out. Well...that's reality of a TV series. It should be more rushed and details should be left out because pacing and budgets are very different in books than it is in a series. I understand your point about Ciri and Yennefer, and I'm sure book readers saw it as a lost opportunity between two central characters, but I don't think that point was nearly as noticeable to non-book readers. I thought that the pacing was perfect, and I wouldn't have wanted them to add additional episodes to appease book readers...there will always be book details that are missed. 

And comparing it to GoT? Stop right there. If you are going to compare any show to GoT you are going to be disappointed. GoT was the greatest show of all time through the first 6 seasons...just untouchable. No show should be held to those types of standards. And heck...people STILL complained about lost details between the series and book. People STILL had issues with Arya not having enough time with the Many Faced God...though she had literally a season there. It wasn't good enough. Would two seasons have been enough? At some point you just have to say...Eskel is not a central character...his development will ultimately not be that important in the grand scheme of things...and we can't screw up the series pacing.

I absolutely loved season 2 of Witcher. I thought that on the whole it was better than season 1...though I really liked season 1 as well. 

 

Edited December 30, 2021 by sammymvpknight

[Edge]

Like i said before my opinion on the Eskel situation isn't based on the books, as he's not playing any important role in the books, that needed to be shown in the series. I just think it's bad writting to kill him off in the same episode as he was introduced, without giving the viewer a reason to care for this character or care for Vesemirs feelings towards losing him or Geralts feeling towards killing him and so far i got no argument adressing that situation or explaining, why it would make sense to write him off like that, instead of at least trying to give him a background, before killing him or do a simple story like i suggested earlier. Showing him as a good guy, get him infected on screen, which leads to a change of character and his transformation. All of that could have been shown in episode 2-3. Ofc also a bit rushed, but definitely better than introducing a douchebag, who we all of a sudden should care for, because he got infected and turned into a monster. We got no interaction that showed any deep connection between these characters before he was killed.

[Ty21]

Kinda a bold move introducing major characters from the game/s + books and killing them off instantly. If they wanted it to be more like the games, they should’ve added Geralt instantly dying if he takes like 8 feet of fall damage or running up to a monster just to learn it’s way stronger than him and sprinting away 

[THE DUKE]

I wish this series was week to week, I just really don't like the drop the whole season and forced to binge format.  It keeps it in the cultural zeitgeist a lot longer too, you get a whole bunch more discussion and talk about it, not to mention slightly lessens the time between seasons.

[RuskieTitan]

4 hours ago, THE DUKE said:

I wish this series was week to week, I just really don't like the drop the whole season and forced to binge format.  It keeps it in the cultural zeitgeist a lot longer too, you get a whole bunch more discussion and talk about it, not to mention slightly lessens the time between seasons.

Meh, I see pros and cons to the approach, agreed that it would remain a talking point longer, but having the ability to just binge over a couple of days and not have a storyline unresolved as a cliffhanger is also nice.

[Shockwave]

7 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

Meh, I see pros and cons to the approach, agreed that it would remain a talking point longer, but having the ability to just binge over a couple of days and not have a storyline unresolved as a cliffhanger is also nice.

I think it also depends on the show. The threads for Homeland, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead were all interesting as we would speculate week to week what would happen next. Or fawn over major events like the Red Wedding etc. With Netflix type shows there is so much less of that because some people binge it all in one sitting, others watch a couple here and there. Basically you can't even go into the thread until you finish it. Makes for alot less debate and interaction. But on the other hand week to week it was hard to keep up with and remember all the storylines and intricate details. I also like being able to get through a show at my own pace. Like you said...Pros and cons with both I guess

[Fresh Prince]

Just finished episode 7, thought is was pretty laughable that the guards got to Ciri, and Yennifer so quickly. The guards saw them from the tower so far away, but by the time the girls saw the guards they were already so close to them