Finished my second watch of S1. My veredict: liked it much more than first time. With all its many flaws, it's better than S2. The writing and the action scenes had its moments. Calanthe was great. Yennefer's monologue with the dead child was awesome, Geralt vs Renfri and Cahir vs Vilgefortz (this one was great)... there was some quality swordfighting there. And we got a full-scale battle with Nilfgaard in chapter 1. Jaskier's and non Jaskier songs in the credits were also memorable. This was IMO a very flawed but still solid season they could and should built upon...
... we got Groot Eskel instead
They did built upon it though. The effects are better, so are costumes and makeup. Still looks cheap as hell, but at least they tried.
And in terms of writing, there was no chance in hell that they would improve. They completely destroyed the best book in the series and while doing that destroyed most of the setups.
Can't have Ciri and Geralt duo, because they are complete strangers, with no chemistry whatsoever.
Can't have a decent guy Cahir, because he is a complete psycho monster.
Can't have Vilgefortz as a threatening main baddie, because he is now completely useless.
Can't have meaningful reunion between Geralt and Yennefer, because they knew each other for a couple of days before the break-up (their romance sucked in the books as well, but it was better than what what Netflix came up with, that for sure).
And making Yenn a third protagonist means that they would have to invent a storyline for her themselves - and considering how incompetent they are at adding something, it was a doomed endeavor from the start.
The seeds of their demise were planted in the first season and now they are reaping the fruits.
So no, Season 2 is a great successor to Season 1 - it is just as bad.
They did built upon it though. The effects are better, so are costumes and makeup. Still looks cheap as hell, but at least they tried.
And in terms of writing, there was no chance in hell that they would improve. They completely destroyed the best book in the series and while doing that destroyed most of the setups.
Can't have Ciri and Geralt duo, because they are complete strangers, with no chemistry whatsoever.
Can't have a decent guy Cahir, because he is a complete psycho monster.
Can't have Vilgefortz as a threatening main baddie, because he is now completely useless.
Can't have meaningful reunion between Geralt and Yennefer, because they knew each other for a couple of days before the break-up (their romance sucked in the books as well, but it was better than what what Netflix came up with, that for sure).
And making Yenn a third protagonist means that they would have to invent a storyline for her themselves - and considering, how incompetent they are at adding something, it was a doomed endeavor from the start.
The seeds of their demise were planted in the first season and now they are reaping the fruits.
So no, Season 2 is a great successor to Season 1 - it is just as bad.
Well, that was me parroting the old "I like the show for what it is", which is something I can't even say of S2. The whole show is not a worthy adaptation to the books (the costume design is HORRID and that's just one of the many wrong things here), they should have given the adaptation rights to HBO (NOT to D&D obviously) or anyone else that would have taken it completely seriously. The showrunner has thought this is just another corny fantasy and therefore should be portrayed as such. Big mistake
Analyzing each season for what it is I also think 1st season is way better. Although if many changes were made to the books indeed they might have set themselves up (didn't read the books). If a character changes earlier drastically, a later event in the story might just have been there for that characteristic they don't have now.
Definitely the cringiest moment happened at season 1 with that slow-mo aard kiss that came out of nowhere and what, it made the aard haarder? XD
Well, that was me parroting the old "I like the show for what it is", which is something I can't even say of S2. The whole show is not a worthy adaptation to the books (the costume design is HORRID and that's just one of the many wrong things here), they should have given the adaptation rights to HBO (NOT to D&D obviously) or anyone else that would have taken it completely seriously. The showrunner has thought this is just another corny fantasy and therefore should be portrayed as such. Big mistake
Yeah, absolutely. And I stand by the statement that even outside of the books the show sucks. It's not okay, when you can pick apart almost every scene. This battle in the first season, when cavalry just stood still and watched at the charging infantry - only to be on foot the next time we see them... Brrr.
And my hot take is - I wouldn't mind D&D tackling it. Not at all, in fact. They blundered GoT, because they had nothing to work with anymore - but this one is a finished series. And I think they've learned from their mistakes. Because if I had to choose between someone, who ran one of the most successful shows on tv and failed only by the end and someone, who haven't been a showrunner at all, I'd rather not choose at all choose the first option.
Yeah, absolutely. And I stand by the statement that even outside of the books the show sucks. It's not okay, when you can pick apart almost every scene. This battle in the first season, when cavalry just stood still and watched at the charging infantry - only to be on foot the next time we see them... Brrr.
And my hot take is - I wouldn't mind D&D tackling it. Not at all, in fact. They blundered GoT, because they had nothing to work with anymore - but this one is a finished series. And I think they've learned from their mistakes. Because if I had to choose between someone, who ran one of the most successful shows on tv and failed only by the end and someone, who haven't been a showrunner at all, I'd rather not choose at all choose the first option.
Im okay with Benioff and Weiss as showrunners as long as Sapkowski is right next to them every step of the way. The quality of the first 4 seasons of GOT was, after all, a product of the osmosis between D&D and Martin, take the original writer out and that exchange of great ideas is gone
Im okay with Benioff and Weiss as showrunners as long as Sapkowski is right next to them every step of the way. The quality of the first 4 seasons of GOT was, after all, a product of the osmosis between D&D and Martin, take the original writer out and that exchange of great ideas is gone
Yeah, that might've worked nicely. Problem is, Sapkowski is apathetic when it comes to adaptations, so I don't know if he would be bothered to invest so much time into a project like this. But it doesn't have to be him, even - just some decent writer with at least marginal investment into the world - and boom, you have a hit show for all times.
But nooooooooo, we can't have nice things, can we?
Having watched the whole season, here's my two cents:
I knew going in that it wasn't going to be a 100% like the books or the games, but rather its own thing. I honestly liked it for what it was. My only big issue was
Eskel
not having a lot of screen time. Other than that, I feel the cast as a whole did a great job with their characters.
So here are some news.
Apparently, in the first 28 days Witcher Season 2 got 462,500,000 viewed hours, which places it in top 10 most viewed Netflix shows. However, It is less than what Season 1 managed to achieve in the same timeframe, which is 541,010,000 hours. Compared to other successful shows, on Netflix and otherwise, second season usually manages to secure larger viewership than predecessors - Netflix's top 10 is dominated by second and third seasons. Consider also larger budget and bigger marketing campaign, which were supposed to bring more people in. The numbers are still quite large, but the decline is also obvious - and that's on top of lower user review scores on Rotten Tomatoes (S1: 91% vs S2: 60%) and Metacritic (S1: 7.5 vs S2: 3.9). So, despite relatively favorable reception of Season 1, Season 2 wasn't able to follow it up.
Source:
Weekly Top 10 lists of the globally most-watched TV and films on Netflix.
top10.netflix.com
It's also worth noticing recently released season 4 of Cobra Kai, which managed to secure lesser, but still considerable numbers in its first two weeks in comparison with first two weeks of NetWitcher - 227 870 000 for Cobra vs 310 890 000 for Witcher S2. And if a show can achieve this numbers, while costing a fraction of a budget that went into their fantasy flagship, I can really see the board of directors pulling the plug. If this trend continues, Season 3 of the Witcher might very well be the last..
So here are some news.
Apparently, in the first 28 days Witcher Season 2 got 462,500,000 viewed hours, which places it in top 10 most viewed Netflix shows. However, It is less than what Season 1 managed to achieve in the same timeframe, which is 541,010,000 hours. Compared to other successful shows, on Netflix and otherwise, second season usually manages to secure larger viewership than predecessors - Netflix's top 10 is dominated by second and third seasons. Consider also larger budget and bigger marketing campaign, which were supposed to bring more people in. The numbers are still quite large, but the decline is also obvious - and that's on top of lower user review scores on Rotten Tomatoes (S1: 91% vs S2: 60%) and Metacritic (S1: 7.5 vs S2: 3.9). So, despite relatively favorable reception of Season 1, Season 2 wasn't able to follow it up.
Source:
Weekly Top 10 lists of the globally most-watched TV and films on Netflix.
top10.netflix.com
It's also worth noticing recently released season 4 of Cobra Kai, which managed to secure lesser, but still considerable numbers in its first two weeks in comparison with first two weeks of NetWitcher - 227 870 000 for Cobra vs 310 890 000 for Witcher S2. And if a show can achieve this numbers, while costing a fraction of a budget that went into their fantasy flagship, I can really see the board of directors pulling the plug. If this trend continues, Season 3 of the Witcher might very well be the last..
Overall I liked the second season more than the first. Having read the books the first one somewhat bored me as it felt like we were just going through the motions. I enjoyed the fact that the second season dared to do things different. Personally I think that most of the things they did do differently fitted in with the setting well. They may not have happened that way in the books but to me it felt like could have done.
I enjoyed the performance of several actors in S2 more than I had done in S1 and I liked the whole feel of Kaer Morhen and all the characters within. Especially Vesemir. I'd say he was probably the best new character in S2 for me.
I still don't love the casting of Yennefer as in my head she's an older woman, mature in looks and behaviour and the show's Yen seems more like an older teen in both aspects. But it's not terrible by all means.
What I would complain about is that a few characters - Cahir, Fringilla and especially Triss seemed kind of pointless. Sure they have some roles as plot development tools but I've been waiting the entire season for there to be some reason for their screentime. To no avail.
The biggest issue for me though was the last episode. I won't spoil what happens in case someone hasn't had time to watch yet. Especially as the specifics are not relevant. My problem was that it felt like far too much happened in far too short a time. I felt almost rushed when I was watching the episode. Maybe if they had split it into two episodes with some added filler it wouldn't have seemed like that. Then again maybe that was just my impression.
To me it looks like that they do not understand the source-material & either are trying to fix things towards a modern audience or really think they do something creative.
Why I am not sure is because, we are 16(?) episodes in now & we have already covered:
Motherhood. Pregnancy. Mother-daughter relationships. Girl boarding-school. Female role models for girls. Women in patriachaic societies. Women in male dominant surroundings. Women in management positions. Women in employment positions. Father daughter relationships.
Single parent mother. And always a sprinkle of classic romance, love, drama and relationship.
Some even more than once.
Netflix & depending on the genre series have a dominant female audience & there are differenct concepts (like S&theCity = women like to see women in women regarding topics).
So I am not sure if that is concept OR accident to fix the problems, as atm we are on a level of a telenovela.
That shows extremly on the dragon-story:
In case you don't know the books. That is orginally a classic male&female hero find true - meaning = happiness - story.
The problem with this is, that you have to set up the characters & let them do specific things so that this story works.
So it can appear that the girl does nothing or fails consequently & the guy rescues the day & in the end they get together.
You understand the problem for a modern audience if you got that impression?
But - you have seen that story already: That is the story (not plot) of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
It works & it is nothing strange or outdated on it. It even works in the books.
But Hailey Hall edited all scenes out (regardless if they are comedy/what is strange I can tell you) & turned it into a proto-type soap-opera/latin-telenovela, with all genre-dependent absurdities:
In the final of this episode the dragon (older co-worker, village-elder, priest, older wise supporting character) without any logical explenation hands out an advice to head the plot into a specific direction:
"Geraldo. - You can not have Maria-Yennefer de la Vengeranza now. - You have to leave to save the family buisness of your grandfather in Columbia. This is your destiny & you know it!"
And Geraldo (who has zero reason to take this guys word for fact goes) to Jaskier:
"All of this is your fault! All I wanted was to run my small diving school. But since you came into my life - everything is messed up! This is the final farewell! Adios!"
You can see already in front of your inner-eye a bunch of latin women sitting in the couch going:
"Oh, no, Geraldo! Don't you know that you can't find happiness on your own!"
Spiced with a 'how much love of a woman can hurt a man song' during the end-credits.
That is the original story turned upside down. They turned a happy-ending of a classic story into a telenovela cliff-hanger that is motivated in less than 5 secs/one scene out of nowhere, as all characters seem to have read the script = means = they react exactly how they have to for the plot.
What we see is:
Maria-Yennefer de la Vengeranza and her god-daughter Maria-Cirilla Cinteranzio heir to the Cinteranzio family buisness, that got overtaken by her own father, who built up a new company that runs on shady buisness practices.
With her on/off lover Geraldo, who runs a diving school for tourists in shark-invested waters (good workout + dangerous job = manly enough to protect, but tamed enough to not be barbarian aka the perfect man (but they are not together – and we all wish they would be)).
And Jaskier the always-friend-zone friendly bartender. The funny side-kick, that is a ladys-man (outside of the series) & does suddenly in his spare-time work for UNICEF (aka Elfy-CEF).
And it has the same problems like this TV-junk-food, as this strong focus on female characters results into that specifically male ones fall extremly short. That is because in every scene a female character is present SHE has the lines of motivation, plot-points & development.
My fave characterehere is the Nilfgaard guy (Cahir).
As he is in for 2 seasons – but because he is always in scenes with a female character he is still: "Nilfgaard guy who is good with sword."
As even if there is a chance, where this character can have the slightest amount of character development (in sense of a trait; we have no info about who that man is) - Fringilla explains to him who he is & what he wants... He is just a "pretty face".
Or Eskel's character introduction to set him up for the audience – so that everybody is engaged when Geralt has to make the dramatic descision:
Killing a mentor or his best friend?
How is Eskel motivated for the audience for that?
Geralt hugs him. (End of motivation: Love this guy cuz Geralt likes him & you know Geralt, don't you? He is good. And he likes him. *smile )
Don't get me wrong- I think it's nice that they got an actor for that – as a broom could do the same.
Geralt: "Ah, this is my favourite broom!"
Broom: "Har, har. I am a wood monster! Gotcha Vesemir!"
Vesemir: "Geralt! No! It's your favourite broom!"
Geralt breaks broom.
He is a plot-device, without any positive character-trait, as his only purpose is to serve the story:
He is an incompetent witcher & unpolite to people – even to women that got paid to sleep with him. <- I hope you see the problem here.
(Yeah, cool – that this is only because of infection – but we have never seen uninfected Eskel. So this is all of Eskel we got & that means: This character spits a prostitute in her face, cause he can.)
What a pleasant being this guy is – I hope he does not die. ( And never think about why Geralt likes him as there is a rat-tail of problems )
He is the no-good-guy StarTrek Redshirt that only serves the purpose to show that the horror attached to Ciri crawled into Kaer Morhen.
And that male-plot-devices happen often. Here in the dragon story above, too .
Geralt (the lead; his name is in the title) is the view fom Hiccup in Toothless' eye to realize that a dragon is a living creature, too.
That is Geralt's purpose in that dragon-episode. To convince Yen that killing a mother to become a mother is bad. (to give here a character development; that btw leads to nowhere).
In How to train a dragon that is solved via view-into-eye of living creature by human. Two shots. That's the lead-character's task in the that story:
Being a camera angle... Creative, very aristic, but there is a reason why Spielberg doesn't do it...
While(!) - (again I'm not sure if that is missing talent or concept) Triss is 5 secs in in S2 and Bam! Character trait: Caring & empathic in one deed.
Voila! - That's how you do it. But in total contrast to Eskel.
The same guy (Geralt) who says with a blade in his belly: Renfri, there is always an option B. Who sleeps in a coffin to rescue a striga-princess, suddenly argues: Sometimes killing for the lesser evil is justified...
Lectures by this his mentor (Skywalker & Kenobi just switched positions) so that ObiWan suddenly goes:
ObiWan: "You were right, Luke. Sometimes the dark-side of the force is a neccessity."
(Vesemir even says this into the camera - this is on the list of stuff Luke or ObiWan are never ever allowed to say, no matter what)
But it gets even better:
After we are down that road already Geralt goes: "No! This time the killing for the lesser evil rule, does not apply! We need to find an option B aka don't go at Ciri."
So everybody back to page one. Such turns & twists are telenovela's bread & butter. As suddenly a character can just for the cause of keeping the plot running – switch & switch back – whatever is needed for the plot-line.
While - Geralt is now a hypocrite or maybe a gigolo: Option B only applies if victim is princess. Idk. But I would argue this as well weakens the character, as most people are no princesses. So you might want to go with Lambert in case of curse.
But to have this even happen, without anybody jumping like a bodyguard into that bullet that is coming by that 'creative choices' in our direction – is because nobody thought about this.
Question is: Why did nobody thought about this?
Either because everybody is looking into another direction as everybody is focused on the plot but not the characters (this how telenovelas work) OR this is not thinking, because you do something creative wihthout knowing the basics ( why are stories like they are)?
No matter what is the reason: They do not understand their source-material. They are not aware that Witcher is archetype classic hero-characters in a neo-realistic fantasy universe.
What they do is 'modernized neo-realistic characters in a neo-realistic universe'. And that is the core of the problem.
(The whole idea to give Yen a mother-motivation – is already not understanding the character. As now this Yen is a random-Jane. Essay why here.)
They do something with the show the source-material is not.
This is no adaptation – this is a transformation up to fan-fiction that results into problems they try to solve that this show is now on the level of a telenovela. TV-junk-food.
Watch it - just don't think about it, as if you do – they just butchered their main-character - and that something you don't wanna realize.
So bottom line: I – seriously (no irony) - would love to know what Lauren Hissrich loved on the books.
If this is really somehow a vision – or if that is ice-cold producer judgement of: That material has the potential to reach the Netflix mainstream market (mainly female). This is a TV-series with a strong brand & spin off potential.
As if that is vision - they are in dire need of a John Milius (as that is the master of classic storytelling).
In case you don't know the books. That is orginally a classic male&female hero find true - meaning = happiness - story.
The problem with this is, that you have to set up the characters & let them do specific things so that this story works.
So it can appear that the girl does nothing or fails consequently & the guy rescues the day & in the end they get together.
You understand the problem for a modern audience if you got that impression?
But - you have seen that story already: That is the story (not plot) of Raiders of the Lost Ark.
It works & it is nothing strange or outdated on it. It even works in the books.
I've read it quite a while ago, but that's not exactly how i remember it going in the story. Geralt doesn't save the day or even does anything meaningful, really. The day gets saved by Tea, Vea and, ironically enough, Yennefer - with slight help from Geralt. They way they did it is very questionable, but that's a topic for another discussion. Fact is, this story practically cements the new way in which Sapkowski took the character from the Last Wish. In his first book, Geralt is calm, collected, somewhat rational hero, ready to save the day when needed. In The Sword of Destiny, however, Geralt became indecisive, impulsive and aimless emotional wreck - the state, in which he remained till the end of the book series.
The Shard of Ice story, for example, is exactly the type of soap-opera storytelling you've described - Geraldo and Maria-Yennefer de la Vengeranza can't be together, because Maria-Yennefer is secretly in love with Don Istreddo, which causes an emotional turmoil for every party involved and ends in a dramatic separation with a letter, delivered by a raven. It's pure telenovela material - and practically entire Yennefer/Geralt romance in the books consists of bullshit like this.
In fact, the show significantly diverges from the source material when it comes to Geralt characterization - I don't really know, whether or not it is because showrunners were too busy rewriting everything or because Cavill can't really deliver a dramatic, reflexive and even weak-willed man, but we have what we have. And being a talking furniture in his own story is pretty much how it goes for Geralt past the first set of short stories.
That's a pretty interesting point of view and I agree with some parts of it, however, I have some points of contention.
I've read it quite a while ago, but that's not exactly how i remember it going in the story. Geralt doesn't save the day or even does anything meaningful, really. The day gets saved by Tea, Vea and, ironically enough, Yennefer - with slight help from Geralt.
It's not about amount. It's about story-relevance. The book is a different story & plot.
This is why telenovelas are like they are. They are just plot.
As plot is easy to understand. You can watch it understand it, you don't feel dumb, you don't have to think, everything is layed out for you. It's very shallow.
Story-telling is about characters. And how hard that is to get – you can see on GOT f.e. There are till today people who do not understand why this ended like it did or did not saw that coming, as they thought they see something different (like Witcher – they thought they see Witcher).
The books are not just plot. - Show this once on that example, but please, don't let me go now throught that 8 books:
The Shard of Ice story, for example, is exactly the type of soap-opera storytelling you've described - Geraldo and Maria-Yennefer de la Vengeranza can't be together, because Maria-Yennefer is secretly in love with Don Istreddo, which causes an emotional turmoil for every party involved and ends in a dramatic separation with a letter, delivered by a raven. It's pure telenovela material - and practically entire Yennefer/Geralt romance in the books consists of bullshit like this.
They are two people from different worlds. And he is in a world full of monsters or all horrors of man-kind you can imagine.
That he does not fall is because of her. She is his island of calmness & salvation. Love kills the (inner) demons.
But as this is neo-realistic – like a soldier in war, who has a girl at home & out of nowhere she writes him: It does not work out (as she is in a different world & compares/thinks about her options/as their worlds are not compatible). This can break a guy.
In RL I don't want to know how many guys died, because it flipped them over or did things they would have never done before after they got such a letter.
Telenovela would work like this: Don Istreddo shows up. He is charming, good looking & suddenly Maria-Yennefer Vengeranza goes: "Oh! Hi. *smile"
While you don't know nothing about Don Istreddo except his job (he has the biggest hotel in town). He is shallow. And you have zero motivation for Yen to go: That's an option B to my monster-hunting idealist that just stands in cave & fights six vampires off to not eat a baby.
Without thinking about the consequences in message here: As having the biggest hotel (so in reality did everything rigth that made you rich) is equal to humantarian aid for the 3 world. <- That weakens Yen's character, as now she is a fool.
The motivation will be like: Geraldo told Yennefer he can't come to her, because he has a tourist group coming to the diving school & she feels lonely for the time being.
That's just plot & suddenly Yen can't be alone for that day & looking around for option: Match-B. While you saw already 20 other guys that would equally be a 'Match-B'.
Topic does not matter. Telenovelas are just reduced to the plot & even sacrifice characters for that & don't take any responsibility for messages they put out. That is then the point when a telenovela-fan will tell you: Yeah, that is realistic, people are like this (to go for the guy with the hotel instead for the guy who fights malaria). And it is not wrong.
But would not be something I would advertize for multiple reasons.
I don't really know, whether or not it is because showrunners were too busy rewriting everything or because Cavill can't really deliver a dramatic, reflexive and even weak-willed man, but we have what we have. And being a talking furniture in his own story is pretty much how it goes for Geralt past the first set of short stories.
You can't say this from the outside, as it is not writer – actor – movie.
It is often very unfair to judge actors on acting as you don't know if what they do is already damage preventation of something worse. There is a director on every set & he/she calls the shots. There is a dop + team and an editor, who can ruin or save a preformance.
You don't know which takes were available that ended in the final-cut. There is a chance that you have never seen Cavill's preformance of Geralt.
I always say: There are no bad actors, there are only bad directors.
As they do have the responsibility. They call the shots. They decide what to present, how & what is gold.
I consider the directing work here not outstanding. I doubt that their directors have much low-budget experience or are willing to invest what you need to give that the look it requires. As we are two seasons in now & that series has no tone.
And whatever excuse they have. My bar is X-Files. X-Files was low-budget, too with 18 hour days, 20 episodes per season, where everybody fought for his life to make this nonsense plot believeable. At least show that you fought with all you got.
That you don't see a dark, sincer, medieval-fantasy world – is on them. And that is just setting the tone.
If one director would come up and say: "I don't like fantasy, never read the Witcher, that's just a job for me."
I would believe him. As this is exactly how it looks. And that is already the best-case scenario. Worse can be - that you have some guy there who thinks he is Lars von Trier & rescues this nonsense-crap everybody liked & have seen 1000 times in history (from his perception).
No matter what - he/she would be the wrong guy for the job, even if he/she is the nicest guy to be, as this is story-telling & no social event.
Bottom line - without knowing - you can't tell.
LOTR was the first great Medieval Fantasy film. GOT S1-6 (in 5 and 6 is when it started to decline but some scenes like Hardhome, Battle of the Bastards and the Sept's burning were top-notch) was the second.
Coming from that source material, The Witcher should have been the third. We got a less than average show instead, because it wasn't given to people who take it seriously
LOTR was the first great Medieval Fantasy film. GOT S1-6 (in 5 and 6 is when it started to decline but some scenes like Hardhome, Battle of the Bastards and the Sept's burning were top-notch) was the second.
Coming from that source material, The Witcher should have been the third. We got a less than average show instead, because it wasn't given to people who take it seriously
LOTR was the first and the greatest fantasy film. I don't think any other live-action will ever come close to the level that Lord of the rings films have. And not only because the books are an untouchable, unattainable pinnacle of fantasy genre, but also for their own merits - cinematography, score, casting and acting, dialogue, costumes, special effects, - everything, really. It's set the bar too goddamn high. It also came out in the peculiar spot when the technology was good enough to do it justice, but new enough so that they would be among the first to actually use it. Everything that came before them looks really cheap and everything that came after looks derivative. It is a perfect storm of almost all the right decisions, one in a million chance. It just nails this perfect mix of epic battle for the future of the entire Middle earth and at the same time some cozy familiarity of more mundane, peaceful moments. The art design is too iconic to replicate and Sam's monologue is the stuff of legends.
And here we are, 20 years later, with "firefucker" and cheap lenses.
I personally find Conan the Barbarian 1982 to be the best fantasy movie. LOTR is great and splendidly cast, but for me it's less interesting as far as story goes. I like more mature stuff and LOTR in this sense is a basic good vs. evil epic fantasy. Nothing against it, but I like something more gritty. Conan the Barbarian '82 and first 4-5 seasons of GoT are much more my jam. And Witcher books and games fit there as well.
LOTR was the first and the greatest fantasy film. I don't think any other live-action will ever come close to the level that Lord of the rings films have. And not only because the books are an untouchable, unattainable pinnacle of fantasy genre, but also for their own merits - cinematography, score, casting and acting, dialogue, costumes, special effects, - everything, really. It's set the bar too goddamn high. It also came out in the peculiar spot when the technology was good enough to do it justice, but new enough so that they would be among the first to actually use it. Everything that came before them looks really cheap and everything that came after looks derivative. It is a perfect storm of almost all the right decisions, one in a million chance. It just nails this perfect mix of epic battle for the future of the entire Middle earth and at the same time some cozy familiarity of more mundane, peaceful moments. The art design is too iconic to replicate and Sam's monologue is the stuff of legends.
And here we are, 20 years later, with "firefucker" and cheap lenses.
I personally find Conan the Barbarian 1982 to be the best fantasy movie. LOTR is great and splendidly cast, but for me it's less interesting as far as story goes. I like more mature stuff and LOTR in this sense is a basic good vs. evil epic fantasy. Nothing against it, but I like something more gritty. Conan the Barbarian '82 and first 4-5 seasons of GoT are much more my jam. And Witcher books and games fit there as well.
Now that I think about it, there was a very fun movie I watched as a kid called Dragonheart and, ironically enough, it offers a much better Witcher experience than Witcher netflix show.
Lets see:
- A long-haired disheartened, but noble wandering knight on a quest of hunting a monster? Check.
- Bossy girl as a love interest? Check.
- A subversion of a classic fairy tale narrative with "human" turning out to be cruel, violent and evil, while "the monster" turns out to be kind, heroic and self-sacrificing? Check.
- Educated yet funny comedic side-kick? Check.
- Lots of humor mixed with tragedy? Check.
- A moral lesson (you are defined not by who you are, but by what you do)? Check.
It was a really good movie, with a really good cast. And had a much better dragon.
