Fantasy Netflix's The Witcher - General Discussion Thread

[Lighthouse]

Finished it last night. A few things confused me, but as a non book reader and player of the games. That was to be expected.

I was a bit confused mostly by what Geralts wish was with Yen.

The book doesn't say either. It's like what Bill Murray whispers to Scar Jo in Lost in Translation. It's a mystery that's left open to the reader/viewer. It's literally "The Last Wish" that's the title of the first book. It sets up the central mystery of Geralt and Yennifer's relationship. Is it real love, or is it magic from Geralt's wish? Similar to the theme of the series of whether destiny is real or not.

 

[DeadPresident]

I didn’t know about the Entertainment Weekly fiasco until ten minutes ago when I saw John Campea rant about it.

I find it sadly hilarious that an outlet that big could’ve damaged a show’s reputation (never mind absolutely savaging their own in the process) just because they were too lazy to actually watch the show.

The slightly more concerning part is that the review was brutally negative, and I have to wonder why someone would go that deep into the tank after only watching two episodes. I’d like to believe there aren’t biases among top publications but this smacks of some pleb having a preconceived idea and sticking to it regardless of what their actual experience is.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I didn’t know about the Entertainment Weekly fiasco until ten minutes ago when I saw John Campea rant about it.

I find it sadly hilarious that an outlet that big could’ve damaged a show’s reputation (never mind absolutely savaging their own in the process) just because they were too lazy to actually watch the show.

The slightly more concerning part is that the review was brutally negative, and I have to wonder why someone would go that deep into the tank after only watching two episodes. I’d like to believe there aren’t biases among top publications but this smacks of some pleb having a preconceived idea and sticking to it regardless of what their actual experience is.

Maybe they just thought those two episodes were really, really bad?

 

[DeadPresident]

Maybe they just thought those two episodes were really, really bad?

Sure, sure, I’ll bite Darth, we’ve done this dance many times and I know you love playing devil’s advocate.

Assuming someone is a paid critic, and their job for the week is to watch 8 one hour episodes to review a show, wouldn’t you say it’s odd to watch two episodes out of sequence and then declare the entire series “nakedly terrible”? The headline wasn’t “Episode X and Y of the Witcher were nakedly terrible”, no no, the whole series is “nakedly terrible”. That’s a tad hyperbolic considering someone watched 25% of the show but is willing to massacre 100% of its episodes.

I’m assuming if you write a book one day and a massive reviewer decides to read two chapters out of sequence, with zero appreciation for their context in the larger whole, and he totally lambasts your book that’ll be totally cool, right? Come on - you know it makes no sense and it’s the height of unprofessional from a publication as big as EW. It’s not some random guy writing on their behalf, it’s their brand putting that nonsense out and it’ll have material effects for the show in question.

Also, out of curiosity, would you condone this if someone was lashing out at something you actually liked?

 

[Persona]

Yeah, I don't see how this is even debatable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sure, sure, I’ll bite Darth, we’ve done this dance many times and I know you love playing devil’s advocate.

Assuming someone is a paid critic, and their job for the week is to watch 8 one hour episodes to review a show, wouldn’t you say it’s odd to watch two episodes out of sequence and then declare the entire series “nakedly terrible”? The headline wasn’t “Episode X and Y of the Witcher were nakedly terrible”, no no, the whole series is “nakedly terrible”. That’s a tad hyperbolic considering someone watched 25% of the show but is willing to massacre 100% of its episodes.

I’m assuming if you write a book one day and a massive reviewer decides to read two chapters out of sequence, with zero appreciation for their context in the larger whole, and he totally lambasts your book that’ll be totally cool, right? Come on - you know it makes no sense and it’s the height of unprofessional from a publication as big as EW. It’s not some random guy writing on their behalf, it’s their brand putting that nonsense out and it’ll have material effects for the show in question.

Also, out of curiosity, would you condone this if someone was lashing out at something you actually liked?

I am not the devil's advocate. I am just right.

Well first, they did not have 8 episodes to watch. The screeners sent out only had 5 episodes. Second, this is how the vast majority of television reviews work. Even on streaming. They review an episode, maybe 3 a lot of the time. For streaming shows it is somewhere between 4 episodes and a little over half the season. And that is what the season's review is based off of. Unless you think people have been reviewing the entire season for shows on their premiere date in October, when it finishes up in May. I still remember when Luke Cage received all those rave reviews for the first half of it's first season, when all the, "WTF" was in the second half.

Was it stupid? Yep. Was it unprofessional? Sure. All they had to do is say they watched two episodes, and thought it sucked. But that wasn't the question. You asked why they would say a show is completely crap based off two episodes. If I watched two random episodes of Batwoman this season, I'd tell you the same thing. And guess what, I'd be right. If I watched two random episodes of Watchmen, I'd tell you it's awesome. And again, I'd be right.

I have only seen the first episode. Did not like it much. But I have heard it gets better, and I am curious to see if I like it more by the end. I didn't like the pilot much for Penny Dreadful, and I ended up loving it. But it isn't like the Witcher is reviewing overly well. It is split down the middle on RT. So it isn't like EW is vastly out of step. Also it is super disingenuous to compare an episode of a show, to a chapter in a book. Especially when you consider that is how they decided stuff like the Emmys.

The first season of Punisher did not go all that well with critics. I didn't complain. I don't usually complain about critics, no matter their views. As you know, they are all individual opinions.

 

[TheVileOne]

What entertainment weekly did in skipping half the review screener episodes and then bragging about it in the arrogant fashion those writers did and handing out two zero grades for THE SAME REVIEW is unacceptable and indefensible. They still skipped over half the review screener episodes if there were five.

 

[DeadPresident]

Your verbal gymnastics when you’re clearly wrong are tiresome.

If they were sent five episodes and still wrote that review after watching less than half of it my points still logically stand - you didn’t address the core of my post. A professional publication and a professional reviewer can by no stretch of the imagination (or in good faith or conscience) make a blanket statement about an entire season of a series having only watched two of five available episodes - it’s absolutely ridiculous and you already know you would’ve had something to say about it if it was about a series you actually had positive regard for.

They’re also patently not individual opinions because they’re put out by a publication, in the case of EW a large one that a fair number of people probably base their opinions on.

It’s alright to admit you’re patently wrong once in a while Darth, you won’t burst into confetti from it.

 

[TheVileOne]

I am not the devil's advocate. I am just right.

Well first, they did not have 8 episodes to watch. The screeners sent out only had 5 episodes. Second, this is how the vast majority of television reviews work. Even on streaming. They review an episode, maybe 3 a lot of the time. For streaming shows it is somewhere between 4 episodes and a little over half the season. And that is what the season's review is based off of. Unless you think people have been reviewing the entire season for shows on their premiere date in October, when it finishes up in May. I still remember when Luke Cage received all those rave reviews for the first half of it's first season, when all the, "WTF" was in the second half.

Was it stupid? Yep. Was it unprofessional? Sure. All they had to do is say they watched two episodes, and thought it sucked. But that wasn't the question. You asked why they would say a show is completely crap based off two episodes. If I watched two random episodes of Batwoman this season, I'd tell you the same thing. And guess what, I'd be right. If I watched two random episodes of Watchmen, I'd tell you it's awesome. And again, I'd be right.

I have only seen the first episode. Did not like it much. But I have heard it gets better, and I am curious to see if I like it more by the end. I didn't like the pilot much for Penny Dreadful, and I ended up loving it. But it isn't like the Witcher is reviewing overly well. It is split down the middle on RT. So it isn't like EW is vastly out of step. Also it is super disingenuous to compare an episode of a show, to a chapter in a book. Especially when you consider that is how they decided stuff like the Emmys.

The first season of Punisher did not go all that well with critics. I didn't complain. I don't usually complain about critics, no matter their views. As you know, they are all individual opinions.

Taken straight from EW review:

Darren Franich was planning to review the new Netflix series

The Witcher by himself. Then he watched half an hour of the premiere and begged his critical colleague Kristen Baldwin to join his quest. The results were not pretty.

DARREN: Because life’s too short for Netflix drama running times, I skipped ahead to the fifth episode, which brings the Yennefer and Geralt plotlines together. Episode 5 also features Magic Viagra and a masked orgy set to some truly ridiculous retro-softcore music. I do think there’s room for a mature-content fantasy romp in our post-Game of Thrones universe, but eternal exposition runs alongside a tin ear for dialogue.

Despicable, disgusting, and pathetic.

 

[TheVileOne]

Spoiler

Geralt wishes that he doesnt lose Yen to keep her alive when she was doing her ritual, but when Yen finds out she flips her lid (see episode 6) as she thinks that is was just the wish that was giving her the feelings towards Geralt and why they keep bumping into each other and not "real love"

I do wonder what non-book/game readers and players will make of it as there is a lot of stuff that is barely mentioned in the show that needs more explanation, like what exactly Witchers do, why there are monsters running around and magic anyway and why elves are treated like they are. The conjunction of the spheres is mentioned in episode 2 or 3 I think but only very briefly and maybe they were afraid of an exposition dump which nobody likes but I feel needs addressing in season 2 otherwise I can see people getting very lost with this if not familiar.

I think it's pretty clear from watching the show that Witchers are monster hunters, or medieval-esque ratcatchers or exterminators. Istredd addresses the elves and why they're persecuted in Episode 2 as I recall. As does Filavandrel.

 

[TheVileOne]

Your verbal gymnastics when you’re clearly wrong are tiresome.

If they were sent five episodes and still wrote that review after watching less than half of it my points still logically stand - you didn’t address any of them. A professional publication and a professional reviewer can by no stretch of the imagination (or in good faith or conscience) make a blanket statement about an entire season of a series having only watched two of five available episodes - it’s absolutely ridiculous and you already know you would’ve had something to say about it if it was about a series you actually had positive regard for.

They’re also patently not individual opinions because they’re put out by a publication, in the case of EW a large one that a fair number of people probably base their opinions on.

It’s alright to admit you’re patently wrong once in a while Darth, you won’t burst into confetti from it.

For starters I don't think you guys need to be so intense. But case in point, I already pointed out the egregious flaws for that EW review that make it unacceptable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Taken straight from EW review:



Despicable, disgusting, and pathetic.

Wait, did they admit it in the review? I am confused. Because if they did, what exactly is the issue? They told you it was so bad, they decided to skip ahead? Is that right? I assumed they didn't admit it.

 

[TheVileOne]

Wait, did they admit it in the review? I am confused. Because if they did, what exactly is the issue? They told you it was so bad, they decided to skip ahead? Is that right? I assumed they didn't admit it.

They did admit it in the most obnoxious and unprofessional way possible.

 

[DeadPresident]

My excellent skills of detection suggest Franich already wrote off the Witcher as some kind of second rate GoT knock-off and treated it derisively because of that.

Cue one **** review, written in smug and condescending tone, not only setting his own reputation on fire but calling into question the journalistic quality of what is allowed to pass for “critique” at EW in general.

 

[DeadPresident]

Wait, did they admit it in the review? I am confused. Because if they did, what exactly is the issue? They told you it was so bad, they decided to skip ahead? Is that right? I assumed they didn't admit it.

How I understand it the dude watched one of the early ones, then skipped to the fifth and last they had access to and then wrote his review.

 

[TheVileOne]

I also had access to the same 5 screeners, watched all five, and my review was based on that. I also always make it clear if I get screeners what episodes I viewed.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Your verbal gymnastics when you’re clearly wrong are tiresome.

If they were sent five episodes and still wrote that review after watching less than half of it my points still logically stand - you didn’t address the core of my post. A professional publication and a professional reviewer can by no stretch of the imagination (or in good faith or conscience) make a blanket statement about an entire season of a series having only watched two of five available episodes - it’s absolutely ridiculous and you already know you would’ve had something to say about it if it was about a series you actually had positive regard for.

They’re also patently not individual opinions because they’re put out by a publication, in the case of EW a large one that a fair number of people probably base their opinions on.

It’s alright to admit you’re patently wrong once in a while Darth, you won’t burst into confetti from it.

You can't theoretically judge an entire season by 5 episodes when there are 8 either. Yet you seem fine with that. Why?

I see reviews for what they are. Recommendations. Should I watch this movie or show or not. If I read a review and they tell me they thought it was so bad, they couldn't finish more then two episodes, them I take that for what it is. They thought the show sucked.

I am starting to think you don't read a lot of reviews. Go to RT. See how many times different writers from the same publication have different reviews for a show. Also, yeah, they tell you who reviewed it.

 

[DeadPresident]

And just for full disclosure, people ripping the Witcher to pieces is totally cool, more power, but at least do it after you’ve watched all 8 episodes and got the entirety of what the producers wanted to put across.

It’s difficult not to think something is done in bad faith if someone goes through the bare minimum of content for any artistic project and then rapidly proceeds to go “lol my time’s too precious, series is garbo fam try harder next time kthxbai”.

 

[TheVileOne]

You can't theoretically judge an entire season by 5 episodes when there are 8 either. Yet you seem fine with that. Why?

I see reviews for what they are. Recommendations. Should I watch this movie or show or not. If I read a review and they tell me they thought it was so bad, they couldn't finish more then two episodes, them I take that for what it is. They thought the show sucked.

I am starting to think you don't read a lot of reviews. Go to RT. See how many times different writers from the same publication have different reviews for a show. Also, yeah, they tell you who reviewed it.

If you have five episodes you can render a review on those five, but what EW did was unprofessional and egregious, and it's undeniable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

They did admit it in the most obnoxious and unprofessional way possible.

Sure. What exactly does that change? They did not lie, they made it perfectly clear. I don't even have to agree with it, to understand that. Especially as their editor must have signed off.

 

[DeadPresident]

You can't theoretically judge an entire season by 5 episodes when there are 8 either. Yet you seem fine with that. Why?

I see reviews for what they are. Recommendations. Should I watch this movie or show or not. If I read a review and they tell me they thought it was so bad, they couldn't finish more then two episodes, them I take that for what it is. They thought the show sucked.

I am starting to think you don't read a lot of reviews. Go to RT. See how many times different writers from the same publication have different reviews for a show. Also, yeah, they tell you who reviewed it.

You love splitting inconsequential hairs... There were only five available at the time, what can I do about that? Does the logic follow that five episodes is greater than two? If we can agree on that contentious point then logically watching five would’ve given the reviewer better scope to critique it from - no? It’s like you blatantly ignore the logic of my post and zero in on one small detail to pick to death.

How you engage with reviews is borderline irrelevant and not related to anything I’ve discussed, so we can shelf that line of argument.

What I did point out is that an outlet like EW has a decent amount of pull, so them putting a bad faith and dog **** review (in terms of merit and quality, not opinion) has a substantial effect. Once again, the presence of the individual reviewer’s name is irrelevant - because for most readers they go “EW said this, Variety said that, Forbes said X”. When people quote trades do they frequently use just the name of the publication, or do they only give something credence when it’s a particular writer writing for that publication? Come on.

I read a fair amount of reviews, but I tend to stay away from hyperbolic tittering when it’s clear the writer is in love with their own voice rather than focused on giving me balanced commentary.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And just for full disclosure, people ripping the Witcher to pieces is totally cool, more power, but at least do it after you’ve watched all 8 episodes and got the entirety of what the producers wanted to put across.

It’s difficult not to think something is done in bad faith if someone goes through the bare minimum of content for any artistic project and then rapidly proceeds to go “lol my time’s too precious, series is garbo fam try harder next time kthxbai”.

In that case, no one could review it until after the show came out on Netflix. Which is of course misses the point of reviews. That is like the video games that don't send out review code, as to avoid reviews before release. Netflix could have sent the entire season, but they didn't.

 

[TheVileOne]

Sure. What exactly does that change? They did not lie, they made it perfectly clear. I don't even have to agree with it, to understand that. Especially as their editor must have signed off.

I never said they lied. I said it was unprofessional, obnoxious, egregious, despicable, disgusting, and pathetic.

What I think is disingenuous though, getting a second critic to do a two-person review for one show, and then Rotten Tomatoes or Meta Critic counting their ONE review as two zeroes. Which is garbage because it's the same review and one reviewer couldn't cut the mustard to do it himself.

 

[DeadPresident]

In that case, no one could review it until after the show came out on Netflix. Which is of course misses the point of reviews. That is like the video games that don't send out review code, as to avoid reviews before release. Netflix could have sent the entire season, but they didn't.

That’s your closing argument...? Dozens of other publications had to play by the same rules and managed to avoid journalistic suicide and your finale for this little back and forth is “Why didn’t Netflix send out the whole series?”...

Aight fam, I’m going to see myself out.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You love splitting inconsequential hairs... There were only five available at the time, what can I do about that? Does the logic follow that five episodes is greater than two? If we can agree on that contentious point then logically watching five would’ve given the reviewer better scope to critique it from - no?

How you engage with reviews is borderline irrelevant and not related to anything I’ve discussed, so we can shelf that line of argument.

What I did point out is that an outlet like EW has a decent amount of pull, so them putting a bad faith and dog **** review (in terms of merit and quality, not opinion) has a substantial effect.

I read a fair amount of reviews, but I tend to stay away from hyperbolic tittering when it’s clear the writer is in love with their own voice rather than focused on giving me balanced commentary.

It would only be in bad faith if they lied. They didn't. What is complicated about this? They told you how they reviewed it. You don't have to read it. You don't have to take their advice. You don't ever have to read them again. But the complaining about this is way more ridiculous then the review.

Also you can't say in one breath people should only review it after seeing the whole thing, and then say well they should have to watch everything they sent. That is two completely different positions.