Having not read the books, nor played the games, I went into this show blank, with no idea what it's going to be about. [Yes, while watching, I did try to ignore (as much as I could) the comparison to, or have expectations as high as Game of Thrones]. Hence the real question to be asked - Is The Witcher a good show for someone like me?
(Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5180504/mediaviewer/rm880577537)
What shows like these are supposed to do is to build the characters, the lore, the environment in which it is set, and explore the locations, places, and rules of the said world (in short, world-building). However, The Witcher only succeeds marginally in doing so. I wouldn't mind the random time jumps, if this was Season 3 or 4. I wished there was a deeper exploration of this world, that has mutants, witches, mages, kingdoms and more. Who are the Nilfgaardians? What is the significance of places like Cintra, Sodden, Aretuza, Blaviken? What is a kikimora, a djinn or a striga? Random character names and locations are introduced/mentioned frequently and abruptly, expecting you to remember or care about who's who and what is going on in the initial episodes. More tight writing and a gripping screenplay might solve this issue in Season 2, as I also felt that one season may be too short of a time for the writers to cram everything.
This makes me ask myself an interesting question. How did GoT pull this off? Was it because it had a tremendous advantage by having a kick-ass intro that showed you the various locations and kingdoms, or was it George RR Martin's writing and vision, that sucked you into the world so easily, without having to go through much trouble of bothering your fellow book reader with questions?
Coming to the acting, Henry Cavill as Geralt was simply fantastic. He embodies the character so well, dominates the screen with his presence, and has the perfect build and dialogue delivery for a Witcher whose job is to hunt and kill monsters. While you may find some episodes slow or dragging, you will never feel bored when Geralt is on screen. While I wanted to know a lot more about witchers and to see him fight more monsters, to know what drives him to do the things he does, Henry did a wonderful job with what he was given. Anya Chalotra as Yennefer also did her part very well. She brought in the bravado, the vulnerability and the beauty to her character as a mage. However, Freya Allan as Ciri seemed to be moderate in her acting. I'm not sure if it was her acting or the writers' way of writing her storyline, but I did feel that there was a lot of wasted potential in her character and story. Joey Batey (Jaskier) and MyAnna Buring (Tissaia) as supporting characters, did their parts justice.
Some of Witcher's strong points are its cinematography, CGI, gorgeous locations, catchy soundtrack, and costume designs. While we don't get a good grip on the various locations the characters are in or travel to, the visual imagery of such places is sometimes captured very well. During sword fight scenes, the camera doesn't abruptly cut away, making you engrossed into the screen as you watch Cavill fight people and monsters with such swagger. The CGI used for the show, especially during the magic/witchcraft scenes were done well. Music by Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli suited the theme and setting of the show perfectly. Songs such as "Geralt of Rivia" and "Toss A Coin to your Witcher" (thanks to Jaskier) are stuck in my head ever since I finished watching the show.
Continuing my discussion of characters, the villain(?) was poorly developed, to say the least. I almost forgot who the villains were supposed to be midway in the series. A lot more backstory and screen time should have been devoted to them, both of which seem to be the glaring issue in the show as a whole. Also, what was that anti-climatic ending? Sure, on the face of it, what they had done was fine, but considering that they had built that up throughout the season and what the characters went through to be in that place, the ending could have been done a little better.
Despite all its flaws, I was very engrossed in this fantasy world of the Witcher. Some episodes (especially episode 3 and 7) were amazing, albeit some others leading to frustrations due to the underutilization of certain characters and moderate world-building. (TL,DR: the pros outweigh the cons). I wish Netflix ups the production budget, writers focus on improved storylines and characters, and we as viewers are given more insights into this world and the characters' backstories. I eagerly look forward to Season 2 and more!
To this Witcher, I shall toss 7 out of 10 coins.
(Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5180504/mediaviewer/rm880577537)
What shows like these are supposed to do is to build the characters, the lore, the environment in which it is set, and explore the locations, places, and rules of the said world (in short, world-building). However, The Witcher only succeeds marginally in doing so. I wouldn't mind the random time jumps, if this was Season 3 or 4. I wished there was a deeper exploration of this world, that has mutants, witches, mages, kingdoms and more. Who are the Nilfgaardians? What is the significance of places like Cintra, Sodden, Aretuza, Blaviken? What is a kikimora, a djinn or a striga? Random character names and locations are introduced/mentioned frequently and abruptly, expecting you to remember or care about who's who and what is going on in the initial episodes. More tight writing and a gripping screenplay might solve this issue in Season 2, as I also felt that one season may be too short of a time for the writers to cram everything.
This makes me ask myself an interesting question. How did GoT pull this off? Was it because it had a tremendous advantage by having a kick-ass intro that showed you the various locations and kingdoms, or was it George RR Martin's writing and vision, that sucked you into the world so easily, without having to go through much trouble of bothering your fellow book reader with questions?
Coming to the acting, Henry Cavill as Geralt was simply fantastic. He embodies the character so well, dominates the screen with his presence, and has the perfect build and dialogue delivery for a Witcher whose job is to hunt and kill monsters. While you may find some episodes slow or dragging, you will never feel bored when Geralt is on screen. While I wanted to know a lot more about witchers and to see him fight more monsters, to know what drives him to do the things he does, Henry did a wonderful job with what he was given. Anya Chalotra as Yennefer also did her part very well. She brought in the bravado, the vulnerability and the beauty to her character as a mage. However, Freya Allan as Ciri seemed to be moderate in her acting. I'm not sure if it was her acting or the writers' way of writing her storyline, but I did feel that there was a lot of wasted potential in her character and story. Joey Batey (Jaskier) and MyAnna Buring (Tissaia) as supporting characters, did their parts justice.
Some of Witcher's strong points are its cinematography, CGI, gorgeous locations, catchy soundtrack, and costume designs. While we don't get a good grip on the various locations the characters are in or travel to, the visual imagery of such places is sometimes captured very well. During sword fight scenes, the camera doesn't abruptly cut away, making you engrossed into the screen as you watch Cavill fight people and monsters with such swagger. The CGI used for the show, especially during the magic/witchcraft scenes were done well. Music by Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli suited the theme and setting of the show perfectly. Songs such as "Geralt of Rivia" and "Toss A Coin to your Witcher" (thanks to Jaskier) are stuck in my head ever since I finished watching the show.
Continuing my discussion of characters, the villain(?) was poorly developed, to say the least. I almost forgot who the villains were supposed to be midway in the series. A lot more backstory and screen time should have been devoted to them, both of which seem to be the glaring issue in the show as a whole. Also, what was that anti-climatic ending? Sure, on the face of it, what they had done was fine, but considering that they had built that up throughout the season and what the characters went through to be in that place, the ending could have been done a little better.
Despite all its flaws, I was very engrossed in this fantasy world of the Witcher. Some episodes (especially episode 3 and 7) were amazing, albeit some others leading to frustrations due to the underutilization of certain characters and moderate world-building. (TL,DR: the pros outweigh the cons). I wish Netflix ups the production budget, writers focus on improved storylines and characters, and we as viewers are given more insights into this world and the characters' backstories. I eagerly look forward to Season 2 and more!
To this Witcher, I shall toss 7 out of 10 coins.
Comments
Post a Comment