The Witcher - The Netflix Series

[Sly Boots]

I don't get why they didn't at least have text prompts along the lines of "30 years ago", "Present day", etc. I like how all the different threads converged in the last episode, which I thought paid off, but there was no need for the timelines to be so intentionally confusing for the rest of the season.

Yeah, it would have helped a lot of people. They did have a reason for it, though can't remember what it was.

This is a pretty good interview with the showrunner, and she talks about her decision-making on the structure and timelines:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-w ... 0-6472385/

On the absence of title cards:

"It's something that we debated a lot," she said. "In fact, I was very adamant from the beginning that I didn't want any sort of year markers or place markers. I didn't want chyrons to tell you where you were and when you were. Also, when you're dealing with three storylines, it's really hard, because what do you say? 'Two weeks after the other storyline, but three years before this next one that you're going to see?' It's super complicated."

[Maturin]

I was fine with the way they did it personally, and I've never read the books. Once I twigged the different timelines it quickly all fell into place for me. And I think it was only really the first 3 episodes that switched around an awful lot.

[Wrathbone]

Yeah, it never spoiled it for me, but it was sometimes distracting. I don't think any timeline text would have had to be complex or even more confusing. Even just 'The Past' and 'The Present' would have clarified it enough.

[Mantis]

I kind of liked not having the markers to explain it. It was confusing for a while when dead characters suddenly reappeared but it also made for quite a nice "ohhh" moment when you pieced together what order it all went in.

[Raid]

I wouldn't say it put me off exactly, but I think as a storytelling method it detracts more than it adds. I don't think captions would really have helped, as in my case it's the jumping around that bugs me more so than not knowing when each scene is set. I don't think I'd mind it if say, they did one episode from Ciri's perspective and then one from Geralt's, regardless of when each episode was set. I suspect that's easier to get away with than it once was as it's not uncommon for people to watch episodes over a much shorter period of time, so you wouldn't run in to as many problems of having to shoehorn both characters into each episode for fans of each, and it's probably less contractually problematic these days too.

[Snowy]

I suspect that the members of this forum are not as stupid as many of the population though.

Any of you wound up about wearing a mask? 5G? Weaponised Covid? Thought not - so understanding a plot with shifting timelines was fine for you

[eny]

Arf!

[arqueturus]

I genuinely enjoyed the fact that it was shot in such a way. Less that it was or wasn't confusing but more that it exampled how the protagonists intertwinned over them. Beats flash backs any day.

Books use this device more often than film/TV I guess.

[Medicine Man]

[Hatredsheart]

[Animalmother]

New season is now up

[Wrathbone]

Watched the first new episode and very much enjoyed it! From what I gather, this season will be more linear so it should be a lot easier to follow.

[Sly Boots]

Watched the first new episode and very much enjoyed it! From what I gather, this season will be more linear so it should be a lot easier to follow.

Yep, enjoyed the first one (which was actually the first short story written), but no issue with how they tied Ciri into it as well.

And yes, understand that all the jumping about between different timelines has finished now.

[Wrathbone]

Just finished season 2. Overall I thought it was an improvement over season 1, with a more coherent story, better CGI, some truly gripping moments and nice character work. There is the elephant in the room, though, which I understand has kicked up a bit of a stink online:

Spoiler

Eskel's death. The explanation given by Lauren Hissrich is that it acts "as a way of pushing Geralt into agreeing to teach Ciri how to defend herself," which seems like a filmsy reason at best to me. I didn't get that at all from watching it, but even if that was the reason it was a silly choice because it could have been any new or un-named witcher familiar to Geralt. Ignoring the books and games, Eskel is only in the show for a couple of episodes so in that context he may as well be any random witcher. I've only read The Last Wish so I don't know how significant his character is in the books, but it feels like a weird and disappointing choice to kill him off immediately after introducing him.

Putting that aside, I'm hungry for more episodes now and lord only knows how long away that is. At least it'll give me time to get through the books, which I've been meaning to do for years.

[Sly Boots]

He's a bigger presence in the games than the books (I've read them all - some twice - and struggle to remember his appearances), but honestly it was a shitty way to treat the character and it did annoy me.