[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're actually proving my point for me. Everything you're mentioning is predicated on you already KNOWING ALL OF THAT BEFOREHAND!

Spoiler:

To many others (myself included), the fact that all of the different substories' were playing out on different timelines (though each were linear on their own) was not at all clear. And when it became clear in the final episode, it was too late to unmuddy the waters of what came before.

There's such a thing as trying to be too clever, and/or too intricate. I love non-linear story-telling, and I pride myself on being able to keep up with the most intricate plotting and time-line jumping an author/director can throw at me. I seek it out regularly. But that's usually equal parts me and the story-teller's abilities when it "works". In my opinion, they did a poor job of allowing me (and any utter newcomer, really) to ever get--and stay--with the program.

The bottom line is that it's not my fault the adaptation had its work cut out for it in combining the salient points from several different short stories (and multiple timelines spanning 90+ years) into one "coherent" presentation. As a complete newcomer to the Witcher ouvre, I shouldn't have to have it explained to me why the series it had to be the way it was. I should have been able to just "get it" from what I was given. And that's on them, not me.

Well, not all of it.
I binged it with my sister over the holidays. One day.
All I did was point out that the series logo reflected the pendants of the three characters because they were all important.
It takes a while to sink in but eventually you catch on that the Yennefer timeline is over a century, Geralt's is a couple decades, and Ciri's but a few months.
Not immediately obvious but if you stick with it you catch on...eventually.

It's a lot like the WATCHMEN show. They both tease you, they both demand attention to detail and they both do weird things--from a TV point of view-- but in both cases they payoff is good. It all makes sense. If you stick with it.

With Witcher the biggest ask was the, apparently filler episode of the dragon hunt. Which was actually important in aligning the timelines for Geralt and Yen.

One of the good thing about streaming series is they're not constrained by the lowest common denominator thinking of tge broadcast networks. It does open the door to gratuitous nudity and sex, especially in european co-funded shows, but it does give creators a lot of latitude in pacing, episode count, and narrative twists.

They demand more of viewers but it usually pays off.

Another example of this is in THE BOYS over on Prime. The final reveal at the end of the first season changes everything we were led to believe (but was properly foreshadowed) and totally undercuts Butcher's rationalization for what he does.

Viewers need to put more in to get more.

As I said, it's not for everybody.

Your gripes are fair, especially if you stopped partway through.

But these shows are built for bingeing unlike, say, THE MANDALORIAN, DOOM PATROL, or TITANS, which are all excellent but more episodic in nature and thrive on making the viewer wonder what comes next.

This dichotomy between shows designed for bingeing, like a singoe massive novel, versus the serialized ones, like an anthology of novellas is only going to grow as streaming originals become the mainstream of video.

Me, I'm looking forward to the more complex shows.
Next up, I'll be hitting HIS DARK MATERIALS. I tried the first and quickly realized it needs bingeing. In the meantime, I'll get by with HARLEY QUINN. Crass, funny, and surprisingly deep for a crass animated show.

I'm loving the streaming era, even if it means I'm reading less.

Only so many eyeball hours, after all.

Something the penguin had better take into account if they do trot out a streameing service. Streaming is a very different business than what came before.
(So yeah, it all stays on topic. Barely. )