Thirith on 25/12/2019 at 08:29
Gotta say, I never quite get this 'gratuitous nudity' thing. How is that any more gratuitous than having inordinately attractive people or beautiful scenery? Is there any pressing reason *not* to have nudity?
I do get the "We're going to show copious female nudity, but not male, because... something" criticism, though, because at that point it's not gratuitous, it's just pandering and sexist.
Starker on 25/12/2019 at 16:42
Nudity becomes gratuitous when it's done in a fanservice-y way. When it's clearly meant for audience titillation and has very little to do with plot. When the show takes time to linger on it. When there's a beach episode in your otherwise serious work about the horrors of war. *cough*Valkyria Chronicles*cough* It's not as much about the amount of nudity as it's about how it's handled and presented.
Thirith on 25/12/2019 at 17:03
Sure, I agree that there can be nudity that is gratuitous, that serves no function other than titillation, and that therefore doesn't fit with whatever else we're being shown, but people more quickly say that nudity is gratuitous, and frankly, I think that some of that is prudery - which is pretty much baked into our society. If there's a mismatch that harms the overall story, tone or themes, sure, but I think it's not particularly coherent to demand that nudity passes a special test to warrrant its existence in a film or TV show, in a way that violence or expensive cars or cute animals never have to.
Starker on 25/12/2019 at 17:16
There is such a thing as gratuitous violence as well. I can't say I have ever heard of expensive cars or cute animals being called gratuitous, but (
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SceneryPorn) scenery porn is a trope. There's no special test or anything. It's just something that people notice.
I haven't seen the show yet so I can't really comment on whether the nudity there is really gratuitous or whether TTLG just has a bunch of prudes, but given what I know about the story, I'd be inclined to fall on the side that an excess of violence would be more appropriate in this show than excessive nudity. And no, I don't think you really need a lot of female nudity to show that Geralt has lots of sexy times.
Yakoob on 26/12/2019 at 03:44
Yeah I'm not prudish and don't mind nudity at all, I'm all for normalizing it. Its not excessive in Witcher, but felt one sided and designed to get my male brain firing. I don't doubt it works too, even if people wouldn't admit it.
Tocky on 27/12/2019 at 02:04
Horror and sex have a long history together. Recall the bedroom chapter in Stokers Dracula? Renfield may have been interested in sucking fluids later but that night he wanted his fluids sucked. During the twenties and thirties publications such as Weird Tales had lurid covers of scantily or completely nude (though artfully positioned) women and Margret Brundage has highly sought after issues of that. It may have been tamped down hard in the fifties but it reemerged with a vengeance in the sixties as drive in movies struggled to keep teens coming in. And Hammer. I mean, if ever there was sex it was in those bare breasted vampire flicks of the early seventies. Sure it smacks of desperation for most series and lesser movies to put it into their formula when it is just an action flick but with horror it is part of a long tradition. Sex and horror go together like chocolate syrup on a sundae. Wonderfully so.
Both are meant to be titillating. Ask Elvira.
Uh... this Witcher is a horror?
Renzatic on 27/12/2019 at 02:27
Well, it's about monsters, and the people who kill them, then have hot sex afterwards. Sometimes, they don't even bother with the monsters.
And some times, on not very rare occasions, they have hot sex with the monsters.
...it's a complicated show.
Renzatic on 27/12/2019 at 08:52
Fuck. Hmm. Hmm. Fuck. Hmm. OH VALLEY OF PLENTY!
[video=youtube_share;pkqqs0iEWTA]https://youtu.be/pkqqs0iEWTA[/video]
DaBeast on 28/12/2019 at 18:34
I watched the original Polish TV show or movie, I forget, but only after playing the games. My expectations of characters, locale are obviously very heavily influenced by the games. so bare that in mind.
Made for Netflix shows are either really good or so inconsistent across the board it almost hurts. All of their marvel series suffer from inconsistent acting/camera work/choreography/plot direction/effects. One scene could be really well done, you are engrossed in the story and the action then a scene later you're wondering why the director thought that was acceptable, why not ask for another take to get it right? Or are they trying to hide something with all those quick cuts? etc etc. There is something oddly similar here in The Witcher. As with those Marvel shows however, there is some reasonably decent stuff here, but it might take them a season or two to figure out their groove.
Bad
* Plot focuses way too much on people who aren't Geralt
* Costumes look good, appropriate, or terrible bordering on anachronistic (nilfgard armor may work in a book or game (I don't recall it looking that gaudy), but can you seriously imagine a blacksmith bothering with all those ripples for all that armor?
* Geralt's armour looks like it was made for someone a good foot taller.
* Contact lenses - When you get used to Yennefers purple eyes, they look decent, but Geralt and Ciri constantly have that rediculous googly eyed thing going on, seriously lets down production quality
* Triss isn't a redhead...why bother making people wear contacts for accuracy, but not dye Triss' hair?
* Dutch angles make it look like a shitty 90's matinee action tv show. It's so film student tier, yuck.
* The dragon looks kind of cheap/shitty
* Some of the acting is really quite weak. Too much of a rush/effort to keep costs down to get another take?
Good
* Cavil's voice is pretty damn close, maybe trying a little bit too hard, but still good.
* CG and practical effects are quite decent, not mind blowing, but effective, which is good enough for me.
* Some of the scenic shots look nice, well arranged between actual shots and CG enhancement.
Maybe 5/10 for me. Wouldn't be surprised if it was cancelled after another season.
A sign of the times is a quick glance at most any online discussion on this involving people who can't wait to argue about how woke the show is, whether they're for it for or against. My take is this; if you become familiar with a story's characters/locations as described in a book, or visually presented in some appropriate medium, you expect things to look a certain way. When an adaptation differs in any way it can seem jarring, like a constant reminder of how incorrect what you're seeing is. It fades eventually if you stick with it, you just get used to it.
I found the LoTr films to be quite challenging, likely because I'd read the book roughly once a year since I was a kid and had a very clear idea of what those characters looked like, how they sounded, even the overall tone of the story. Now I can't even remember, when I read it, I see the cast from the films and hear dialogue in their voices. so I can understand why people get annoyed about something being different, or something being changed for woke hollywood woke points or whatever, but tbh I just can't wait for outrage culture to fuck off.
henke on 29/12/2019 at 20:37
Just finished it! Good show overall. My fave episodes were Yen's origin story in Ep 2 and the big battle in the finale. Also I didn't realize it wasn't all chronological until the second to last episode. That revelation made a lot of things that didn't make any sense click into place.