|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 13, 2020 12:09:16 GMT
But is it "good" writing if you lose your audience before you get to the point of whatever story you are telling? I understand that there needs to be character introductions and some backstories, but you can't spend 95% of your time on just backstories when nobody as of yet understands how the characters relate to each other and who the protagonist and antagonists are. The show is called "The Witcher", but so far the actual Witcher isn't a part of his own story. He can be taken out and nothing changes- kind of like The Hobbit.
It's a story meant to entertain or tell a moral narrative, it's not a text book that gives only facts.
So far I'm not too impressed. It has moments that are really good, but then they pull the rug out from under you and go back to drifting around here and there with the narrative. Except for the opening of episode 1, I haven't actually seen Geralt kill a monster on-screen- we find out about it when another minor character says something.
I did like the part where Yennifer was talking with the dead baby on the beach- that was a touching and introspective scene in an otherwise uninteresting and predictable episode.
And there aren't even enough boobs to make it interesting enough to watch a bad story- and that's saying something....
|
|
|
Post by Dandelion on Nov 13, 2020 13:11:07 GMT
It is well known by now that lying Hissrich b*tch already made catastrophic decisions/deviations from the book lore/world for the second season... so bad that a whole local Witcher fanclub (around 70 people or so) signed of Netflix. Are you glad that the Nilfguard armour has changed? Good! We got so much more! Guess what: we are getting a PREGNANT Francesca Findabair (Enid an Gleanna, the daisy from the valleys)... the OLDEST living elf on earth, centuries away from her her fertile years (not to speak of her being a sorceress and thereby being infertile "per se")... the attack on Kaer Morhen by the mob lead by envy sorcerers - NOT in the distant past, but in the actual timeline! I am quite defending on the first season, because i liked the way it unfolded, and i liked the timeline thing. It all came together in the episode were he finds Ciri - SHE is the point of the whole show, of course. That scene was underdone, unfortunately, not emotional enough. Its the actual beginning of the saga. But the way they are obviously going to tell it i am not interested anymore. From my point of view Netflix can sack it up. I'm not quite at that level of frustration with the show. And given the poorly written timeline shenanigans from the first season, odds are the attack on Kaer Morhen will be a flashback sequence. Maybe even the season opener before Geralt explains to Ciri why it's so desolate. That'd be a cool start. It might be all gossip at this time, but unfortunately there are lots of hints that bookfans will have to face serious changings; far mre than in the first season. Its said Netflix wants it to be "less slavic, more colourful" Yeah, we had a real lot of slavic impressions in season 1... It was bearable and acceptable (merely), but if they deviate from lore and canon even more... no. That would be too frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by Dandelion on Nov 13, 2020 13:15:27 GMT
Guess what: we are getting a PREGNANT Francesca Findabair (Enid an Gleanna, the daisy from the valleys)... the OLDEST living elf on earth, centuries away from her her fertile years (not to speak of her being a sorceress and thereby being infertile "per se")... I don't get your aggravation over the pregnant elf. It's not like immortals have menopause, right? Of course they do! An elf is only fertile within the first 60 to 100 years... thats pretty much canon in the books. Thats the main problem of the elves and why they are fading away. Almost all fertile young elfs were killed in the battles when the humans arrived some 500 years ago and when Lara Dorren Aep Shiadhal, Ciri's ancestor, called to arms in a later period. Its Disney-Wars level bull. Big pile of it.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 13, 2020 13:47:09 GMT
I don't get your aggravation over the pregnant elf. It's not like immortals have menopause, right? Of course they do! An elf is only fertile within the first 60 to 100 years... thats pretty much canon in the books. Thats the main problem of the elves and why they are fading away. Almost all fertile young elfs were killed in the battles when the humans arrived some 500 years ago and when Lara Dorren Aep Shiadhal, Ciri's ancestor, called to arms in a later period. Its Disney-Wars level bull. Big pile of it. Now, now.... don't be harsh. You know full well that ALL modern storytelling has Mary Sue as the protagonist and canon laws that govern the physics of the stories' world don't matter if they interfere with the plot (if any). Nor do any actions have any permanent consequences since every mistake can be retconned and the characters can get do-overs. All armor is plot armor, unless you are an NPC in which case YOUR armor is about as effective as 3ply toilet paper. I think that to enjoy modern stories you need to lower your expectations to the absolute minimum, then start digging. Enjoy the flashy lights and CGI and get all the way off their backs about character arcs and narrative story telling.
|
|
|
Post by Dandelion on Nov 13, 2020 13:55:05 GMT
Of course they do! An elf is only fertile within the first 60 to 100 years... thats pretty much canon in the books. Thats the main problem of the elves and why they are fading away. Almost all fertile young elfs were killed in the battles when the humans arrived some 500 years ago and when Lara Dorren Aep Shiadhal, Ciri's ancestor, called to arms in a later period. Its Disney-Wars level bull. Big pile of it. Now, now.... don't be harsh. You know full well that ALL modern storytelling has Mary Sue as the protagonist and canon laws that govern the physics of the stories' world don't matter if they interfere with the plot (if any). Nor do any actions have any permanent consequences since every mistake can be retconned and the characters can get do-overs. All armor is plot armor, unless you are an NPC in which case YOUR armor is about as effective as 3ply toilet paper. I think that to enjoy modern stories you need to lower your expectations to the absolute minimum, then start digging. Enjoy the flashy lights and CGI and get all the way off their backs about character arcs and narrative story telling.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Nov 13, 2020 14:01:20 GMT
Yes! This is the issue I had with Avatar (the one with blue folks) It was a crappy story, but it was PRETTY...
|
|
seth
Member
Just Peachy
Posts: 971
|
Post by seth on Nov 13, 2020 15:31:10 GMT
I am half way through the second book, and I am enjoying them a lot. I highly recommend them even if you don't like the show. I liked the show ok, but it was hard to follow.
Also, because of the books, I now understand Dandelion's screenname. When I watched the show I never knew the bard's name--I just thought of him as the bard. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Dandelion on Nov 13, 2020 16:43:13 GMT
Yes! This is the issue I had with Avatar (the one with blue folks) It was a crappy story, but it was PRETTY... What? The story was beautiful, very warming and emotional... nothing new on the western front, though. Ah, as said earlier... the different tastes.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Nov 13, 2020 19:18:13 GMT
I liked the books, but the show? Not so much.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Nov 14, 2020 15:04:16 GMT
Not really my genre, but I gave it a shot. I must admit I was impressed in the bad way.
I could follow the unnecessarily jumpy storyline, but it wasn’t interesting enough to parse out or even care.
It just felt like nothing ever happened, and nothing ever mattered to the characters. There was never really any risk to the characters. Outcomes were shown before their importance was clear, making it impossible to appreciate the drama of their development, and robbing the backstory of any anxiety.
I can see why the Cavill character had to use the F-bomb so often (and out of character as portrayed in the show) - to outright tell the viewer something important must have just happened.
The actors were extremely photogenic and seemed to act out the mess they were given as best they could. If there was any character development driven by epic events, it was lost on me.
I kinda figured the show was relying on viewers having inside knowledge from the books. After reading this thread... well, I guess not.
I was hoping that, for fans of the series, the show was at least great for you. Maybe the next season will pay off for you guys.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2020 15:17:51 GMT
Amen, Pellius.
The show's biggest problem in my view is its tone. It just cannot seem to figure out which genre it is in. One minute it's gritty action, then horror, high fantasy, historical drama, blah blah blah. Some filmmakers make the wrong choices, others, in this case, don't make any choices at all.
Where the show really succeeds is when it's just Cavill and his flamboyant bard friend on the road. They have good chemistry, the banter is good, and I like a good buddy road trip story. It could basically be the Lethal Weapon of fantasy shows if it wanted to be, but it tries to be everything at once. It's a hot mess.
|
|
seth
Member
Just Peachy
Posts: 971
|
Post by seth on Nov 14, 2020 17:43:48 GMT
Yes! This is the issue I had with Avatar (the one with blue folks) It was a crappy story, but it was PRETTY... A reimagined Dances with Wolves.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 14, 2020 18:13:55 GMT
Yes! This is the issue I had with Avatar (the one with blue folks) It was a crappy story, but it was PRETTY... A reimagined Dances with Wolves. What i didn't understand about Avatar was that if Pandora was so deadly and the Pandorans so dangerous, but knew the humans were avataring into Pandorans bodies, then why didn't they just kill the human avatars instead of inviting them in? Oh right, because the story has to happen. Oh ..look ..flashy lights...bluuuueeé.....
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Nov 14, 2020 19:31:48 GMT
Yes! This is the issue I had with Avatar (the one with blue folks) It was a crappy story, but it was PRETTY... A reimagined Dances with Wolves. In turn a resemprini of a resemprini of A Man Called Horse. Ultimately, all of these are based on romantic fictionalizations of David G. Burnet's account of his life among the Comanches in 1817-1819, combined with several later accounts of female captives of the Comanches. None of the original factual material is very romantic, as culturally, the Comanche amounted to a bike gang on horseback. The later Hollywood insertion of Sioux into the story is utter bullsemprini.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 14, 2020 20:06:29 GMT
A reimagined Dances with Wolves. In turn a resemprini of a resemprini of A Man Called Horse. Ultimately, all of these are based on romantic fictionalizations of David G. Burnet's account of his life among the Comanches in 1817-1819, combined with several later accounts of female captives of the Comanches. None of the original factual material is very romantic, as culturally, the Comanche amounted to a bike gang on horseback. The later Hollywood insertion of Sioux into the story is utter bullsemprini. Hate to be the one to break the news to you; Hollywood is bullsemprini.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Nov 14, 2020 20:13:17 GMT
In turn a resemprini of a resemprini of A Man Called Horse. Ultimately, all of these are based on romantic fictionalizations of David G. Burnet's account of his life among the Comanches in 1817-1819, combined with several later accounts of female captives of the Comanches. None of the original factual material is very romantic, as culturally, the Comanche amounted to a bike gang on horseback. The later Hollywood insertion of Sioux into the story is utter bullsemprini. Hate to be the one to break the news to you; Hollywood is bullsemprini. What news?
|
|
seth
Member
Just Peachy
Posts: 971
|
Post by seth on Nov 15, 2020 0:07:32 GMT
A reimagined Dances with Wolves. In turn a resemprini of a resemprini of A Man Called Horse. Ultimately, all of these are based on romantic fictionalizations of David G. Burnet's account of his life among the Comanches in 1817-1819, combined with several later accounts of female captives of the Comanches. None of the original factual material is very romantic, as culturally, the Comanche amounted to a bike gang on horseback. The later Hollywood insertion of Sioux into the story is utter bullsemprini. Oh yeah I remember A Man Called Horse! The sun dance scene gave me nightmares. Also, Little Big Man with Dustin Hoffman which my grandpa was an extra in. He played one of the cavalry troopers on horse back. There are accounts of fur trappers living with tribes, intermarrying, etc. I seem to recall reading something about some of the first Europeans on the east coast leaving the colonies to live with the Native Americans as well just because they actually had a better quality of life.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Nov 15, 2020 5:04:07 GMT
In turn a resemprini of a resemprini of A Man Called Horse. Ultimately, all of these are based on romantic fictionalizations of David G. Burnet's account of his life among the Comanches in 1817-1819, combined with several later accounts of female captives of the Comanches. None of the original factual material is very romantic, as culturally, the Comanche amounted to a bike gang on horseback. The later Hollywood insertion of Sioux into the story is utter bullsemprini. Oh yeah I remember A Man Called Horse! The sun dance scene gave me nightmares. Also, Little Big Man with Dustin Hoffman which my grandpa was an extra in. He played one of the cavalry troopers on horse back. There are accounts of fur trappers living with tribes, intermarrying, etc. I seem to recall reading something about some of the first Europeans on the east coast leaving the colonies to live with the Native Americans as well just because they actually had a better quality of life. Dances With Wolves (the book) originally drew its ethnographic material entirely from descriptions of the Comanches (principally the Burnet and Cynthia Ann Parker accounts). The experiences of participants in the pre-1840's fur trade probably had no influence on the story. It also makes a lot more historical sense by being set on the Southern Plains where the Comanche lived, because that area became a power vacuum during the Civil War, while it would have been difficult for Dunbar to get forgotten, where the movie put him.
I won't go too deeply into it, but the accounts which you mention are based on friendly relations with primarily Algonquian and secondarily Siouan speaking semi-settled tribes, whose customs differed radically from those of the Comanche.
The Comanche were originally a small group (not a "tribe") who seceded from the Numic speaking Eastern Shoshoni around 1700. They adopted a highly mobile horse-dependent lifestyle (the first Indians to do so) economically based on alternately raiding and trading with the Spanish colonies. They also preyed on neighboring tribes (including their relatives), whom they captured slaves from to sell to the Spanish. Later, they traded with and raided into French and American territory. They earned a considerable reputation as dangerous neighbors, and were like nothing else in Amerindian ethnography. You can't just replace them with Sioux extras, and hit anywhere close to historical accuracy.
|
|