Crosstalk: Was The Witcher a good show?

The Witcher recently dropped its wildly successful first season on Netflix, and we’re here to discuss what we loved, hated, or were just plain “meh” about.

Based on the books by Andrzej Sapkowski, The Witcher is about a professional monster hunter named Geralt of Rivia (Henry Cavill), the sorceress Yennefer (Anya Chalotra) and the wayward princess Ciri (Freya Allan). Let’s discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly. SPOILERS follow below!

COREY: First up, my personal choice for the show’s strongest character is Yennefer of Vengerberg. Yennefer is one of the show’s central characters, and a powerful mage who gets the most screen time after Geralt himself. I’ve not read Sapkowski’s books, but I understand Yennefer’s backstory receives significantly more screen time, and I for one enjoyed it. Watching Yennefer transform from a belittled hunchback to a strong and beautiful woman was interesting, though not as much as when Yennefer finally achieved the power she so desired only to find it unfulfilling.

Yennefer’s oscillating between initially wanting a child as a means of producing a legacy to eventually realizing she has the power to have a more permanent effect on the Continent was easily the best story arc of the show. Yennefer is a flawed character, but one that grew as the season went on, and honestly, the character I found the most interesting. Geralt was always fun to watch, but the character felt relatively static in terms of growth compared to Yennefer. I assume we’ll get more of Geralt’s backstory in season 2, but for now, Yennefer was my season 1 MVP.

How about you Dan? Did you enjoy Yennefer as much as I did, or was there another character you liked better?

DAN: Now that I think about it, you’re right: Yennefer did have more of an arc than Geralt, who barely moved at all. I have read the books, at least the ones this season is based on, so it was fun to see showrunner Lauren Hissrich and her team fill out bits of backstory only mentioned on the page. For reference, in the books, we don’t meet Yennefer until Geralt does, during the genie incident in “Bottled Appetites.”

Thinking back, a lot of the strongest moments of the season did belong to Yennefer. She was our point of contact during the exciting, climactic Battle of Sodden (which we only hear about after the fact in the books). Her emerging from her transformation and taking control of her assignment in “Betrayer Moon” was another strong moment, and she held down her own subplot in “Of Banquets, Bastards, and Burials,” when she’s battling the assassin. It wasn’t really until the final two episodes that I realized Yennefer was a strong enough character to carry a finale. And I hadn’t considered that her arc this season concluded with her deciding that she didn’t need a child to have a legacy. I like that.

A lot of the success comes down to Chalotra’s performance. She keeps a tight grip on the character, and finds a way for us to let us sympathize with someone who keeps themselves closed off a lot of the time. Honestly, I thought Cavill was even better when it came to that, since Geralt’s walls make Yennefer’s look like hedges. I’m sure they’ll get more into Geralt’s deal in future seasons.

But I didn’t love everything about Yennefer. Some of my problems carried over from the books. For one, I don’t think the genie incident quite works as a story. It was too goofy and too broad for what they were going for, something I thought was a consistent problem throughout the season. That episode didn’t sell me on Yennefer and Geralt having a connection; I didn’t buy that until their heart-to-heart in “Rare Species,” which I thought was great. And going back to the start, I was always kind of side-eying the idea of someone becoming powerful by improving their looks, although it’s easier to swallow onscreen with an actor of Chalotra’s calibre serving it.

Speaking of looks, can we talk about the shameless nudity? Cause this season has some shameless, early Game of Thrones-level nudity, and always with female characters, whether it’s Yennefer summoning the genie or all the naked people at the magical orgy she was throwing for some reason. Not a fan.

But if there’s a breakout character from the first season of the show, I agree that it’s Yennefer. I’m just hoping I can chalk up some of my problems to growing pains and that the series comes out the other side more confident and measured.

Image: Netflix/The Witcher

COREY: Not that I’m complaining, but it was certainly a non-standard choice to make a secondary character enjoy the most interesting character arc. We got a glimpse of Geralt’s backstory in the finale, but again, it was interesting that the writers chose to push that until season 2 in favor of Yennefer. As to the show’s level of nudity, I’m on the fence.

I found it odd to be sure, as Netflix doesn’t generally inject that level of nudity into its shows, at least not to the level of HBO. Still, while it was a bit jarring at times, I think I understand what the showrunners intentions were, even if I’m not quite sure those intentions came across. Again, Yennefer was at the center of this issue, but I’m not so sure her nudity was as gratuitous as it seems at first glance.

In the orgy scene, I think the writers were trying to illustrate just how utterly bored Yennefer was. Yennefer had the power she always wanted, and yet even in an entire room full of naked people having sex, she was completely unfulfilled. You can see this in how easily Yennefer ends the orgy once a more interesting escapade comes along in the form of Geralt and his apple juice. Yennefer is of course also interested in the djinn, but Geralt instantly intrigues her more than that entire town getting jiggy with it.

As for her nudity later in the episode, I can again see both sides. Sure, it felt a bit gratuitous, but I’m willing to make allowances considering both Yennefer’s past as a physically unattractive woman as well as the somewhat sexual nature of the entire scene. Yennefer was trying to regain her ability to have children by imprisoning the djinn inside herself, which while it doesn’t sound all that erotic does have sexual undertones.

Likewise, at this point in Yennefer’s story, she clearly values her looks as much as her sorcery powers, perhaps even to the point of thinking they are connected. Later in the show, Yennefer’s nudity levels drop dramatically, which I also think signals her maturation and growth as a character. And finally, Yennefer also marked herself with symbols, so maybe they needed to be seen to be effective? I’m not a magical expert, so who knows.

Of course, I could be reading too much into this and the showrunners could have simply said “more nudity!”, but given that “Bottled Appetites” was both written and directed by women, I tend to lean towards there at least being some sort of deeper meaning to both instances of extreme nudity. At any rate, for me it falls under the show simply finding its footing, at least I hope so.

Switching gears, I think we can both agree, Henry Cavill killed it as Geralt, and I’ve now taken to mumbling “hmmm,” throughout my daily life.

Image: Netflix/The Witcher

DAN: Switching gears? Fat chance.

Here’s my counterpoint to everything you just said: the nudity on the show was completely gratuitous, utterly unneeded, and wholly wrongheaded. Yes, the orgy scene illustrates that Yenn was bored, but that doesn’t justify the gratuity. There’s a difference between nudity that feels grounded in the scene and leering at naughty bits just because. The scene where we zoom around Yenn as she heaves and breaths trying to summon the djinn? That would be leering.

I probably don’t need to tell you that the orgy scene doesn’t exist in the books, nor is Yennefer bare-chested when she summons the djinn. Those are show choices.

And you know what makes the nudity fell extra skeevy? It’s only female nudity. Watch that orgy scene again: everyone is having sex, and we see plenty of boobs, but not one single dick. Look, I’d prefer the show not have gratuitous nudity at all, but if you’re gonna have it, at least be brave enough to be an equal opportunity offender.

The other weird thing about the nudity is that it isn’t used when it would actually make sense. Sure, they’ll strip down the extras for no reason, but when Geralt and Renfri have sex in the first episode, everything stays on. If I hadn’t read the book beforehand, I’m not even sure I’d have gotten the message that they’d slept together. So apparently the show will only have nudity when it’s in bad taste.

OKAY. I think I’ve said my piece on that.

You’re right: Cavill is terrific as Geralt. I’m not even sure I can say much more about it; it’s pretty self-evident. He looks the part physically, and he can suggest a lot of depth with just a grunt or a “Fuck.”

Speaking of dialogue, there were a lot of points where I thought it was too broad and cutesy for its own good. I thought the writers spent way too much time winking at the audience or bringing in modern colloquialisms. Phrases like “That’s not a thing” and “So far, so good” sound weird in this environment. Jaskier talks about “delivering exposition” and marvels that dragons “are, in fact, a thing,” and on and on.

A little of that can be fun, but this was too much. It’s the kind of thing I associate with cheesy ’90s fantasy shows like Hercules: The Legendary Journeys or Xena: Warrior Princess, whereas I think this show is going for something a little loftier. I mean, a series that just wanted to entertain us wouldn’t have three hard-to-follow timelines, would it?

What do you think? Are we supposed to take The Witcher as camp? Because sometimes it felt like it.

Image: The Witcher/Netflix

COREY: Regarding the nudity, I’ll only stress again that I’m giving the show the benefit of the doubt in its first season. If we see it again next season (which is already confirmed), then I’ll lean more towards your point. Moving onto to the dialogue, I have to say it’s a bit of a mixed bag, but also one I think we might have our largest disagreement on. For me, the show’s level of campiness resides entirely in one character: Jaskier.

If Yennefer was my favorite character, Jaskier was my least favorite by a long shot, and much of that centered on dialogue that felt out of place. In general, I’d say most of the dialogue was fairly well written (although some of Calanthe’s lines were eye rolling), but Jaskier’s bits usually left me cringing at how terrible they were. I understand the character was there as a means of comic relief on an otherwise grim show, but comic relief really needs to be funny to work. I found Geralt’s use of the word “fuck” much more hilarious than Jaskier’s endless prattling.

It’s funny you bring up those two examples of camp, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Xena: Warrior Princess, because if I’m not mistaken, I believe one or both of those heroes had a similarly inept character who followed them around making terrible jokes. At any rate, I don’t believe the show intended itself to be campy, and for the most part it wasn’t, but whenever Jaskier was on screen it certainly felt that way to me. I’d have been much happier without Jaskier as part of the show, and we could have leaned on Geralt a bit more for the deadpan humor than the juvenile stuff we got from Jaskier.

I tend to agree with you that there was a bit too much anachronistic dialogue, but it never rose to the distracting level of Jaskier’s general presence for me. I know you were a fan of the bard, so now having poked the bear, I will sit back and watch you roar.

Image: The Witcher/Netflix

DAN: Oh, Jaskier’s not worth roaring about, although I very much disagree that the show would be better off without him. I thought he brought some needed grace notes, although whether we should credit that to the writing or Joey Batey’s likable performance is up for debate.

And he can actually sing! I appreciated that.

I also disagree that Jaskier is the only one bringing the camp. He did not have a monopoly on iffy dialogue. For example, although I came around on Geralt’s “Fuck” catchphrase, the way the show uses it — like a pithy rejoinder from an action movie — was consistently cheesy, even if it was funny.

And it’s not all about dialogue. When a porcupine knight gives a weighty speech and no one in the crowded room sniggers about how ridiculous he looks, that’s camp. When Borch Three Jackdaws walks around flanked by a pair of badass Amazon-esque warrior women, what can you do but roll your eyes? The nudity is a part of this, too; a show uses titillation when it’s shameless about wanting you to watch. It’s just that, unlike Hercules or Xena, The Witcher can go full frontal.

And honestly, having pointy-eared elves and rough-talking dwarves immediately nudges your show closer to camp. Ditto wizards creating invisible shields by waving their arms and muttering a spell, or dragons that look several notches short of convincing. Peter Jackson got around stuff like this in The Lord of the Rings movies by leaning on J.R.R. Tolkien’s poetic dialogue and being very specific about how he shot these creatures of myth and legend. I don’t think The Witcher is quite up to that.

Basically, I thought the tone of the show was goofier than it intended. The whole thing didn’t really gel for me until the last few episodes.

One of the things holding it back in the first half were those damn timelines. We’ve put this off long enough: what did you think of the show’s decision to trifurcate the story into three different time periods, one each for Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri?

COREY: Yeah, I’ll give you the porcupine knight, that was a tough one to swallow. I’m not sure how they could have accomplished it, but had we known that dudes could get turned into porcupines before then maybe it wouldn’t have been so odd? As Ron White once said, “I’ll touch your flipper, just warn me first.”

I think the same thing goes for Borch’s Amazon warriors. Others have brought up that the show lacks worldbuilding, and to an extent I agree. Places and faces are thrown around like we’re supposed to know where or who they are. Not that the show should have copied it, but part of the brilliance of the Game of Thrones opening sequence is that gave viewers a sense of geography, which is key when introducing an entirely new world.

I think the lack of worldbuilding did hurt the show to an extent. Maybe the Amazons were from Brokolin? At any rate, those types of things needed to be made clearer to the viewer, I think. The problem was even worse with the elves, who looked ridiculous most of the time, and we only got hints at their backstories.

When Geralt runs into the elven healer before meeting Yennefer, I got a definite Renaissance Fair vibe, which is a problem when you’re trying to be tell a serious story. Between the centaur guy, the porcupine knight, the elves and dwarves popping in and out, it all felt pretty random at times, as none of them really stuck around for long. All you needed was Geralt biting into a turkey leg.

Still, all of that was just a passing distraction compared to the multiple timelines. I’ll be honest, I was not even aware there were multiple timelines until the third episode, I believe. Unless it’s Westworld complicated, I don’t necessarily mind timeline jumps, but these weren’t really clear to me. Lost famously had all manner of time jumps — backwards, forwards, sideways, etc — and yet as far as I can remember, it was always clear when these were occurring.

If I’m guessing, it felt like the show wanted to build the tension up to the big reveal that Geralt was already in Cintra during the Nilfgaardian attack. Which I guess was cool, but structuring your entire season around that moment didn’t seem worth the payoff. I also wonder how much of this was a means to include Ciri in the story. I’ve not read the books, so I don’t know how central she is to everything, but I could have done without her in season 1, especially if it meant a more linear narrative.

Plenty of shows introduce central characters after the first season, and if it meant we could have lost the timeline jumping, I’d have said cut Ciri. Geralt and Yennefer’s arcs were sufficiently entertaining to stand on their own, while Ciri’s was only interesting in terms of who she ran into, like the Doppler villain. She wasn’t really a compelling character by herself.

At any rate, if I need a chart to keep track of the timelines on a show, it’s probably going to lose me eventually. I know the showrunners have said season 2 will have a cleaner timeline, which is good news, but like we said, the show borders on camp, so you can’t expect me to also have to do homework. At least in Westworld’s case they were trying to be as highbrow as possible, but if your show is giving me Renaissance Fair vibes, you can’t also make it overly complicated.

DAN: Oh yeah, I forgot about Brokilon. Hey, why was there was a bright yellow light in the background of that place no matter the camera angle? Weird.

Having read the books, I can confirm that Ciri is indeed very important, and definitely don’t think she should have been cut. But she shouldn’t have been introduced like this.

Lauren Hissrich has said, basically, that she constructed the timelines this way so we could spend more-or-less equal time with each of our three principle characters: Geralt, Yennefer and Ciri. That worked fine for Geralt and Yennefer. Until they met up in Episode 5, their stories were happening at different points in time, but their plots didn’t intersect so it didn’t matter.

Flashing forward to Ciri’s experiences is what messed up the time stream, created the confusion, and dragged down the pace. It created a bizarre situation where we watched people like Calanthe and Eist die in the first episode and then went back and built them up as characters. How much better would it have been if we’d gotten to know them before Cintra fell, so we felt something when they went down? The show spoiled itself.

It didn’t need to be this way. If I can put on my book nerd hat for a moment, the show cut the story of Geralt and Ciri’s first meeting. In the books, they meet in Brokilin Forest before Cintra falls, in a more-or-less self-contained adventure. That’s where they first get to know each other and establish a relationship, so their reunion after the sack has a lot more power. Here, all of that fell flat for me.

To me, the timeline stuff was a complete fail. The show didn’t need to have Ciri present from Episode 1 for her to feel important; it should have followed Geralt and Yennefer chronologically until Ciri came into the story naturally. The only silver lining is that we won’t have to endure that stuff in season 2.

Image: The Witcher/Netflix

COREY: Yeah, the books sound like they handle Ciri’s situation much better. When they hug in the forest in the finale, I thought it was odd given that they’d never met before. And I would agree, Ciri could have been introduced later in the season and still felt important to the series overall.

Not to hammer on the timeline issue, but I started to rewatch the series, and boy does it make a lot more sense having seen the future timeline. From the moment when we see Ciri look at the doorway Geralt comes out of, to Mousesack leaving Calanthe’s side and returning to report “He’s gone,” I understood a lot more of what was happening. I don’t need everything spoon fed to me, but there’s no way for us to know who “he” is the first time we see that episode. It’s not clever if it’s impossible to figure out; it’s bad storytelling.

And if I can bring up one last tangent, what was up with Vilgefortz? He got his ass handed to him by Cahir and then woke up and immediately began bashing in the brains of his fellow mages. Did he switch sides? Is he striking out on his own? It all just seemed so random.

At any rate, overall I still have to say I quite enjoyed the first season. It was not without its problems, which we’ve discussed at length, but it was was still good television. First seasons, or first movies in a series, suffer from the restraints of having setting up a new narrative, so I can forgive many of the show’s flaws since the rest was enjoyable. The soundtrack, performances by the lead characters, and the general world itself were all strong enough to hook me.

For season 2, a clearer sense of the continent’s geography would be nice, as would an extended look into Geralt’s background. Likewise, I’d like to see Nilfgaard’s goals expanded quite a bit. As villains in season 1 they were rather one note, and we got little insight into their actual goal. And my final request would be more of the fight choreography we saw in the first episode. Geralt ripping through Renfri’s men was easily the show’s best fight, and I’d like to see more of that.

I think Netflix has a genuine hit on its hands, and if it polishes a few elements, it could be even more successful. Without moving to a weekly release schedule, it will be hard for any Netflix show to reach phenomenon status, but that’s a discussion for another time. Season 1 was a solid beginning, and I am looking forward to what season 2 will bring us.

Image: The Witcher/Netflix

DAN: I think I know what they’re going for with Vilgefortz, who I quite liked in the final two episodes, but it involves spoilers so I’ll say no more. I can pretty much guarantee that we’ll get more backstory on Geralt on the witchers in season 2. Not sure about Nilfgaaridan motives. Personally, I kind of liked that the Nilfgaardians were portrayed as this implacable, unknowable force, but that only goes so far. They’re due for some shading.

As for the fight scenes, I enjoyed most of them, although that first one actually stood out to me as…odd. With the slow-mo and ultra-violence, it felt more Matrix-y and stylized than the rest, probably because it was choreographed by a different guy than who did the rest of the season. As long as they pick a consistent style, I’ll be fine.

Like you, I’m interested in watching season 2, but on the whole I can’t call this first season good. You’re waving away some of the issue as opening day stumbles, but I think that’s too kind. The timeline nonsense wasn’t a rookie mistake; that was a giant swing and a miss. It was a bad choice that made it harder to understand the story, and when you’re introducing people to a whole new world, it’s crucial the audience understand the story.

You didn’t see the first season of Game of Thrones fumble like this. I don’t think it’s something I can just excuse.

That said, what saved the series for me was the obvious passion of everyone making it. We’ve talked about how the show sometimes comes off as campy, but it couldn’t do that if the people behind it didn’t sincerely believe that they were making something great and trying their hardest to bring it to life. There’s something earnest and disarming about that. I’ll happily watch more, and since the timeline stuff has worked itself out, season 2 is pretty much destined to be better.

To stay up to date on everything fantasy, science fiction, and WiC, follow our all-encompassing Facebook page and sign up for our exclusive newsletter.

Watch Game of Thrones for FREE with a no-risk, 7-day free trial of Amazon Channels