@@halecj1The battle of the 5 armies. There is no comparision with the genius work of Peter Jackson. He is the ultimative Creator, countless directors try to copy- but never came near. He and his team won 11 oscars.
Agreed, Witcher/Wheel of time did so many things right , but missed building the foundation part.. so no one cares about anything , nothing has any stakes. How are you supposed to make a compelling story when you rush character/world building.
100% Battle of the Bastards from GOT. That moment when Jon Snow stands in front of an army - sword in hand and ready to hack everyone is just BREATHTAKING.
The siege of Minas Tirith. I’m not sure I spelled it right. I love that battle from beginning to end. I know it gets cut up by the heroes doing other stuff, but it still flows well.
And King Theoden's words! So awesome! _"So much death. What can men do against such reckless hate?"_ _"Look at my men. Their courage hangs by a thread. If this is to be our end, then I would have them make such an end as to be worthy of remembrance."_ Lines both brilliantly written and superbly delivered.
Even better at the Battle of Pelennor Fields: “Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden! Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter! Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises! Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!”
I remember watching some analysis saying that in the Battle of Helm's Deep, the defenders always stay on the left side of the screen facing the right side, while the attackers stay on right side of the screen facing the left. Therefore no matter how much chaos is going in the battle, we can easily tell which trope the characters belong to.
The movie "The Siege of Jadotville" does the same thing. So the viewer is never confused between side is the Irish battalion and which side is the Katangan army/French mercenaries.
Peter Jackson actually has a rule for his battle sequences: no more than 2 shots in a row without the main characters. After every one or two shots of generic battle action, he will cut to one of the main characters whom the audience actually cares about to keep the stakes high.
i’m fresh from another rewatch of the extended versions,that’s why i’m deep in this rabbit hole of comparisons to other shows (RoP sucks in itself,abysmal when compared to PJs rendition).. and it just made me want to watch the trilogy AGAIN..
I have yet to hear about a piece of fiction being popular because it was dumbed down. I have often heard about fiction being popular because it was complex and well thought out.
@oreohunter7798 lol. To be fair i think skyrims success is more about the world and memeability. But yeah the systems are definitely dumbed down compared to other elder scrolls games
Just to further prove this point, in the books, the Aretuza battle (or Thanedd Coup as it's more commonly known as) was seen exclusively from the perspectives of Geralt and Ciri, aka the protagonists of the story, and both of them were trying to find each other and Yennefer, who had disappeared completely. Which further emphasizes where the stakes of the story were and what the audience was supposed to care about. It wasn't on the politics of the Northern Kingdoms, Nilfgaard, the sorcerers, or the Elves, all of whom were established as a bunch of scheming, backstabbing assholes. It was about the three main characters we had been following for most of the series up to this chaotic moment in time. And the fact that they fail and end up separated only goes on to further inflame the drama. Heck for the rest of "Time of Contempt," the book where the Coup takes place, we don't even know if Geralt and Yennefer are alive!
yeah that what i dont understand about the show instead of following MCs with global conflicts happening around them we follow global conflict with small involvement of MCs
@@InvertedWIngThe first season is a collection of short stories that were only loosely related. Maybe I'm remembering wrong but I'm almost sure the show runners changed some things slightly so they'd be more connected but it made less sense than the book.
9:00 another reason this detail is so great is that it highlights the sheer desperation of the remaining humans, as a bit earlier they showed the elderly and even children being suited up for war. He not only lost his nerve, but he was far to old to be an effective soldier anyways! Great scene
Rather than being nervous and "losing his nerve", I always saw old-guy Tim as not having the strength to keep holding the bowstring back like that, and thus highlighting that these people were not proper soldiers, and wouldn't fare very well in battle...
@@julien4327 I think the bowstring slipped from his fingers due to the rain making it slippery, too. He had been holding it so long, until his fingers couldnt hold on anymore.
Also the fact the Uruk-Hai army seemed content to hold a stand-off and the tension broke into chaos because his arrow flew true and hit the gap in the armor.
Most bows used in battle had like at least a 100 pound drawback, the strong and well trained archers of the real world wouldnt hold back on a bow for much longer than 2 seconds because they were not physically strong enough to do so.@@julien4327
I like the use of helm’s deep because it also counters the take the a change in the source material is the problem with the Witcher. It isn’t always the best thing to do, but elves at the battle of Helm’s Deep is famously a major deviation from the books. Yet the sequence and battle was still excellent.
@iansirraven2151 precisely. Many of the best film adaptations make changes. Sometimes huge changes (just look at apocalypse now vs heart of darknesss the book its based on). Its all about the reasoning and how well it executes the change. Thats why i always try to judge films based off what theyre going for. Im not the biggest fan of horror, but i can see when a movie does horror well and will judge it accordingly
Agreed, my personal favourite example is from game of thrones. That series turned to shit incredibly fast in season four, and while the warning signs were there in earlier seasons, the first three are still pretty good. Somehow. But the point is that, as brain-meltingly angry as I am over how they completely changed, everything threw away really, about the story in later, my favourite scene is one that's not in the books. It's the one where Little Finger talks to Varys in the throne room, with cuts to jon climbing the wall. It's incredibly atmospheric and in just a few seconds it perfectly captures LFs character in a way that covers a whole heap of development that happens in the books but that the show didn't have time for. Changes to the source material can really enhance a story, byt only if they are done well. And if they are done by coke-snorting narcissists (GoT) or nerd-hating sorority girls who don't like the story they are adapting (witcher), then it's very unlikely that they will do a good job.
Personally, elves at Helm's Deep is my least favorite part of the whole LotR film trilogy. A major theme of LotR is that magic is leaving the world; especially once destroying the 1 robs the 3 of their power, the elves have nothing left in Middle Earth and so Humans must learn to take up the reigns and fend for themselves. This theme of 'lesser' folk proving themselves through valor and sacrifice is pivotal to why all the characters (especially hobbits) feel so heroic. Having Elves come save the day during Human's first major test in the trilogy uncercuts this. I also dislike it from a lore perspective because Lorien was under serious threat from Dol Guldur and had to fight their own battles.
That witcher battle looks incredibly stupid with everyone just standing in the room like that. No one is going for cover or anything. The mages can make shields I guess, but the archers just stand there and the mages are still getting shot. There are columns around the entire thing and no one is going for cover.
I didn't even watch past season 1 after the incredibly stupid set-up for the battle of Sodden. This was the single stupidest battle scene I've ever seen in my life. They've got a defensive castle (which wasn't there in the books, they literally just had a hill, and if the series left it at that, the battle would have made more sense - but no, they added a castle. On the wrong side of the Yaruga bridge too) - and the first thing the sorcerers do is teleport themselves outside of the castle. Vilgefortz as a powerful mage and the leader of the defence leaves his troops in order to get into a duel with a warrior - and how does he use his powerful magic when he loses his sword? To magic himself ANOTHER sword (instead of, dunno, burn the non-magic opponent or something). Plus the special effects looked so... underwhelming. Compared to that, even the battle of Winterfell against the Whitewalkers looks great, despite the idiotic tactics - but at least the effects looked fine and there was some dramatic tension and some stakes.
I saw the old guy not, scared but rather...old. He is struggling to hold the bowstring back because he just doesn't have the strength in his hands anymore. And so when it finally gives up, it slips out of his hands and catches him off guard.
To be fair to the old soldier, I blame the idiot who thought it was a good idea to make everyone hold their bows fully drawn while the enemy was in range.. I always saw it as the old soldier going, "what the fuck are they teaching these idiots nowadays.. time to go to work.."
I was so disappointed with this battle sequence. When Stregobor brought out the fire I literally said “holy sh*t. This would be so cool if I cared about anyone in this scene!” Splitting up season 3 into a part 1 and part 2 was a bad call
I'm betting they split it up because they wanted to milk as much as they could out of henry still being a part of the show as they could before the viewers truly tanked as they know it will.
@@waunke56That may have been part of it, but I also think the writer’s genuinely thought they were creating a good cliffhanger that people were going to love, which is really sad
One of the things that people forget about LOTR is that neither in the books or movies do we see all the major battles fought. If I remember correctly, there are assaults made on Lothlorien and the Lonely Mountain as well as other battles that we never see, because our main characters are not there
Correct, I'm not 100% on the battle of lothlorien, but I do know that the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain faced ~200,000 Easterlings. The assault forced both the men of Dale, and the Dwarves into the Lonely Mountain, to sit in a siege for the majority of the events in Lord of the Rings. The assault was due to the lack of assistance in locating the Shire, after King Dain rejected a messenger of Mordor, despite the promise of both complete control of Moria, and the return of Thror's lost ring of power. It's actually kinda funny, because the messenger shows up to Erebor, and Dain is like, "Give me some time to think it over", and the messenger straight up goes, "Don't think for too long". Dain then says that his time is his own, and to leave. Absolute legend.
@@RE_ALL-STARCAMERA lothlorien was assaulted by orcs from dol guldur several times. It only stopped once the ring was destroyed. Then galadriel entered dol guldur and tore the entire stronghold down to its foundations
Regarding your first point: That is another point why the Game Of Thrones Intro was so god damn effective. It showed the world, showed each town or city that is relevant this episode and its rough relation and state at the time. IT GAVE CONTEXT WITHOUT NEEDING RUNTIME.
From someone who started with the games and then read the books, this show is as intriguing and interesting as if a 3 year old repeated the stories you told them. That "battle" was a joke
lol I love this description. Any battle that either has unrealistic pauses, unneeded dialogue or unbelievable action as in who is that idoit, its not a battle.
I felt this when I'd go to a friend's house and his family was watching Rings of Power. I asked "why are you watching this awful trash?" And they said "I have low expectations." That about sums it up for me.
If a three year old repeats the stories I told them to me, at least they have the huge significance of a tiny human developing their brains and storytelling-communication abilities. I'd be nothing but proud at the three years old. This show grants no such satisfaction.
Not to mention that 3 year old forgot like everything you told him other than some characteristics of the main characters and then started to babble up random stuff instead that he imagined could somehow make sense but of course makes no sense at all since he is 3 year old. Now imagine you are a writer for netflix and this is the best you can do. What do they pay those people? 150k a year? For someone they put on a high profile series like the witcher probably even more.. Maybe if they just hired 3 y olds instead they wouldnt need to fight account sharing so much because they had much less wasted money...
The Coup in the books was set up so well and was so well written, we didn't really see the main battle because we followed the Witcher and Ciri. By the time Geralt woke up from his night with Yen it was half over. Also killing Rience has robbed book fans of one of the best scenes in the entire book series, so the show runners are just idiots.
At this point there's no robbed experience that, if included, could save that shitshow. Any book fans that actually care about the books have abandoned the show for a long time now, with the most hardcore ones realizing it was shit since the very fist episode of season 1...
@@emmanuel1337 it's so funny you put it this way. Friends told me the show was really good (when season 1 was just over), so we watched the first episode together. After that I really had no idea why they thought the show was good and I told them that it was really really bad as a show and unfaithful af to the source-material. They told me "it wasn't that bad" But after season three they came back and told me "yup, you were right... the show is bad" The signs were there the whole time!
@@Manta665 Season 1 really got people completely blinded by Henry Cavill, one or two good fight scenes and a catchy song, while the show was barely The Witcher at all, with every character being a cringey parody of itself (or a completely different one or not there at all lol) and every element that made the IP good being twisted and diluted to no end. People really need to up their standards, so companies are forced to deliver good products, instead of shit like this "The Witcher" show. Everybody, fan of the books or not, could've been happy if they just adapted the awesome original material, but they went out of their way to change almost everything exclusively for the worse... Really weird stuff.
@@emmanuel1337I don't know who the show was made for. The fans of the source material will go against you when you start changing and ruining things too much, and new viewers will have a hard time get a handle of things, because the structure of the show is abysmal as a whole. The changes they made, did nothing for the story. So why change them? To make things unnecessarily complicated? It's possibly the weirdest adaptation I have ever seen
@@Manta665 It took until Season 3? Season 2 was a shit show. Sure Season 1 wasn't COMPLETELY true to the books, but it still had semblance of hope. Everything after that came crashing real quickly though.
I wouldn't say "one of", I think it's THE best. Second best is the battle of Minas Tirith. No other battles in the history of cinema come close to these two. Given the shoddy work from Hollywood the last few years, I don't think anything ever will.
@@Mat-ss8uw Sorry, but only if you really believe that bigger is better and physicality needs to plow down everything. Peter Jackson needs to make everything bigger, from the size of individual opponents and/or their weapons to the size of armies.
Well explained. An additional thing: the battle of Aretuza seemed to go on forever with no progress. Despite all the violence from both sides, until the end there were about the same number of mages and troops standing opposite each other going at it as hard as they can.
The factors that made the choreography weird for me are: 1. People walking in and out of the battle - it removes the urgency of the battle if you can just do that. 2. People standing in place shooting at each other in a small room - the lack of dynamics is really weird. A real battle would be more chaotic. The fighters being so stationary feels like a battle from a school play. 3. People having dramatic moments in the middle of the battle and no one is shooting at them - admittedly this is a common trope but it is more pronounced here because of the small room and the fighters standing in place. If the battlefield is wide and chaotic, you can make up a head canon that the fighters didn't see the crying character, but if the crying character is 10 feet in front of you it's really hard to find excuses for why you didn't just shoot her.
The big battle in S1E1 killed it for me. _Braveheart_ was the worst thing to happen to medieval-style battles on film. It probably wasn't the first to do it so badly, but it certainly popularised it. Any time two forces square off, it turns into a melee. No formations, no front lines: just get in and amongst each other and fight. No one can have anyone else's back or side. They just run in and find someone to duel with. It's just terrible. At least the elements you spoke about were done very well in _Braveheart,_ though.
It's such a witless trope. I wish more movies and TV shows did battles the way The Gladiator, Rome, and Alexander did. With realistic formations, tactics, and a progression of battle that the viewer can follow, instead of just chaotic melee.
In Braveheart's defense, at least pike stop horses and cavalry goes for the flank. LotR is the worst thing to happen to happen to cavalry in medieval warfare.
@@Pure_Havoc To my memory, the reason why the LotR cavalry worked against the orc pike line was because the orcs broke rank - it was part of showing that evil cowers in the face of bravery, or the like. A broken pike line doesn't defend well against anything, it only does its job when the soldiers hold the line - and when you look closely, you can see the orcs looking back and forth, backing away, raising their pike points to the sky (making the pikes useless due to no longer pointing at the enemy), and so on. There were visual clues for why the pike line didn't murder the cavalry charge - the cavalry relied on intimidating the orcs into breaking discipline (rendering the pike line worthless, because pikes only work when pointing at the enemy), and it worked. Of course, I'm pretty sure that such details tend to get lost on showmakers who try copying that scene.
@@electrowave114I think it’s absolutely insane to add a scene like that though, all the orcs had to do was stand there and hold the pikes and the cavalry would all have died.
@@liamcawley6799 Indeed. But Tolkien's work was as much metaphor for morality and the evils of ambition (literally, the One Ring is a metaphor for how ambition can warp and twist people - and that's why it did nothing to ambition-free Samwise, all it could offer was to make him the world's best gardener in the books, which Samwise deemed ridiculous, and the ring itself admitted was a stretch) as it was a war tale, and so the movies went more with his message than adhering strictly to realistic battles. Plus, the orcs aren't...the best trained. Uruk-hai are very well trained, but average non-Uruk orcs not so much.
Never seen The Witcher, and I never had an interest anyway, but I can't stop laughing at this room being the battground for like 50 people when it's barely big enough for Wizard's Chess. Like, what even is this?
Especially knowing that the mages can portel out to anywhere they want and instead they just stand their charging their spirit bombs while taking arrows to the face, like if they just opened portals under the elves feet that drop them in the ocean, they would have one in 10 seconds
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial It is so egregious that they didn't. They literally tried to make it feel like a grand battle in a single room, when putting the extra fights in the other Aretuza set pieces would have EASILY accomplished this like it did in the first season when the castle was sieged. It would have fixed the soldier versus mage issues because suddenly, in winding corridors, a soldier can get the drop on a mage without needing mcguffin "shield piercing arrows" (I bet they wish they had those in the first season).
@@kyleoates6367Also they lack planing. It should have been more sneaky attack and while redanians are still rounding up the mages. Surely free-for-all meelee with magic less mages vs elves vs redanians who have to decide if they should release mages would be chaotic but probably more impacting than that courtyard brawl where mages should have sweeped the floor with elves
You know it reminds me of the Battle of Hogwarts, or well the scene with Harry, Hermione and Ron running around in between infrustructure to avoid creatures and spells. Granted it was a much bigger space, but if your in a battle with spells and arrows wizzing back and forth, you would think they would get for cover behind a beam or something.
9:15 Very minor thing overall, but he isn't shaking because he's nervous, he's shaking because he's old. That's why he's so shocked when the arrow looses, because he didn't intend to do so, his body just couldn't hold it anymore.
Yeah, within a battle sequence that overall is amazing, the thing about drawing bows and holding in that position is completely unrealistic; there would be no reason to ever deplete your strength by doing that.
Yes, and it’s tied to a story reason that this old guy is up on the walls in the first place - they don’t have enough fighting young men so old men and boys had to take up arms. So it makes sense that he’s there, whereas it normally wouldn’t.
@@julien4327 There's no need for interpretation. That IS how the scene was meant. It's so damn obvious too. Like, the old man is clearly shocked at his own action. Clearly he didn't mean to loose the arrow.
The siege of Helms Deep is a masterpiece. Honourable mention for the siege of Jerusalem in Kingdom of Heaven, which also has a good a narrative arc to it
This video gives credit to a theorie I had for a while now. Superhero Battles in Movies are not real-time but in fact turn based. There is always a character waiting for it's opponent to finish an action, even if the outcome of said action is well within the powers of the character to prevent said outcome.
Well movie fights are not about getting a fast win they are about the drama playing out between the characters. They need to have rising and falling action during the fight.
It makes a lot of sense for superhero fights, because that's how they appear in comics. You see a character in panel doing something. Once in a while you may get a zoomed out group shot, but it always goes back to panels featuring a linear blow-by-blow that greatly resembles a turn-based combat system.
Yes it should have been lots of work to convince the kingdoms to gather a combined force that barely compares to nilfgardians it should have been inferior combined northerner army and mages vs nilfgard. Not just some peasant women and mages vs nilfgard with temerian army showing up to steal the glory like in show
It’s not good spectacle tho. There is no weight. It’s just a bunch of colored mist and slow motion, it’s about as exciting an action scene as an oddly satisfying compilation.
Yes, that battle was already extremely lacking. It had at least established stakes, but the structure was a nightmare. The geography of the whole area was really confusing, as was the time progression. You never really knew who was where or how much time progressed between scenes. You also never got to see how big Nilfgaards army was and since everything was constantly covered in mist and woods, you also never saw how many troops Nilfgaard had lost or how far they've advanced at any given time. It was basically impossible to follow what's going on. All these things were always perfectly clear in any LotR battle. Game of Thrones even managed to achieve the same thing on a TV budget with almost all of their battle sequences.
Exactly..id no idea who to root for...no one seems to know what they want..that francesca is one cluelesss queen..just decides on a whim to do something..and that usually ends with every elf dying around her...only for her to switch to something else in a flash...and then loosing everyone else ...fringilla too switches side at her convenience...so does caheir (wtf IS his problem? cant seem to decide who he's loyal to)...just going round and round in circles.i frankly didnt care who died in the Battle for Aretuza...
Something I've noticed that is another problem at least for me with the Witcher battle is that I cannot for the life of me tell who belongs to who for either side of the fight. In LOTR it's really easy to tell who is who. Ugly and with dark armor? Orc. Literally anyone with lightly colored or ornate armor? Good guy. It's really simple yea but it allows the viewer to tell who is who at a glance. Everyone in The Witcher looks the same and even the elves are very difficult to point out. I didn't notice they were elves until you pointed it out! I put it down to poor costume design and choice of actors or maybe it's just me.
What;s funny is that it would be easy to introduce the visual clues towards each faction, Nilfgaard black and gold sun (in any case Nilfgaard is supposed to be highly advancec culture/civilization modeleld slightly on the Roman Empire, wiht touches of germanic Holy Roman Empire), Redanians red and white eagle emblem, Temerian black and silver lillies and so on, sorcerers also easily could be distinguished if they followed the book: "Where the four corridors joined beneath a column that supported the roof, had a clarity that came from Lanterns and magic globes. Soldiers and sorcerers gathered here. Among the latter were members of the Council: Radcliffe and Sabrina Glevissig. Sabrina, like Keira Metz, was also wearing gray men's clothing. Geralt realised that the coup was taking place before eyes and could recognise the different factions by their uniforms. " Witcher, Time of Contempt :) There were basically three factions duing the coup on Thanedd, sorcerers who were traitors allied with Nilfgaard led by Vilgefortz and Francesca Findabair, and sorcerers loyal to the kings of the northern realms, and neutral party, sorcerers seving neutral kingdoms :). Witcher has it's own worldbuilding unfortunately the show on netflix....COMPLETELY butchered it!!!! Seriously so much could have been done better if only they followerd the book story more closely!!!!! Witcher has more of this moral ambiguity but even there there are are villains often quite despicable and those more decent guys but in general it should be more a bit like Game of Thrones universe, various factions fighting for political dominance and the main characters in the middle of whole mess. Obviously context of the events is different in the books showing how big of a mess the show did! " Once again movement. Voices. The soprano sound of Keira Metz, the low nasal tone of Radcliffe. The tapping of soldiers boots. The raised voice of Tissaia de Vries. 'Let go of her! How could you? How could you do it?' 'She's a traitor!' said nasal, Radcliffe. 'I do not believe it' 'Blood is not water.' Philippa Eilhart said coldly. 'And Emperor Emhyr has promised the elves freedom. And an independent state of their own. And that was enough to immediately betray us.' 'Answer!' Tissaia de Vries said with emotion. 'Answer her, Enid!' 'Answer, Francesca.' The clinking of dimeritum shackles. And the lilting elvish accent of Francesca Findabair, the Daisy of the Valley, the most beautiful woman in the world. 'Me Va a Vort, Dh'oine. These N'aen and dice'n.' 'Is that enough for you, Tissaia?' said Philippa's voice, like a bark. 'Do you believe me now? You, me, we all are and have always been to her Dh'oine, human, which she being Aen Seidh has nothing to say to. And you, Fercart? What has Emhyr and Vilgefortz offered you to, to make you decide to betray us?' " Aen Seidhe elves in the witcher are supposed to be very much Tolkien-esque, tall ,beautiful, slender, long-lived and youthful, the show's casting does not reflect that! That is unfortunate, the elves in the witcher show don't look particularly beautiful, here Lord of the Rings films did the best to visually depict elvest!!! Which unfortunately is also not the case with the Amazon lotr tv show ugghh. Anyway there is so much wrong with the worldbuilding in the witcher show, there was enough material in the books to make it work but those morons working on the scripts completely don;t understand the source material! Elves in the witcher are supposed to have their own fashions and also the Scoia'tael units have particular sort of look, they have the squirrel tails as their recognizing mark they are guerilla warfare unit so their uniforms should also reflect that, they are fighting in the forests and hide in wilderness usually: " He recognised him immediately. From above, down the stair case, came running Dorregaray, the sorcerer in service to King Ethain of Cidaris. He recalled the words of Philippa Eilhart. All sorcerers representing neutral kings had been invited as observers to Garstang. But the way Dorregaray was peeling down the stairs suggested that the invitation had been withdrawn suddenly. 'Dorregaray!' 'Geralt?' Gasped the sorcerer. 'What are you doing here? Do not just stand there, run away! Quickly, down the stairs, to Aretuza.!' 'What happened?' 'Betrayal.' 'What?' Dorregaray suddenly shuddered and coughed in a strange way, and immediately bent over and fell, directly into the Witcher. Before Geralt could grab him, he saw the shaft of an arrow with gray feathers sticking from his back. He staggered with the sorcerer in his arms and it saved his life, because a second identical arrow, instead of going through his throat, slammed into the stone and the ironically smiling face of a Faun, ripping of the nose and part of the cheek. The witcher let go of Dorregaray and ducked behind the balustrade of the stairs. The sorcerer fell on top of him. There were two archers, and both had hats with squirrel tails. One was at the top of the stairs, staining his bow; the second was drawing his sword from its sheath and ran down the stairs, skipping several steps at a time. Geralt freed himself from Dorregaray and sprang up, while he drawing his sword. An arrow sang, the witcher stopped its singing by bouncing it off the tip of his sword quickly. The second elf was already closing, but seeing the arrow reflected by the sword, hesitated for a moment. But only for a moment. He threw himself at the witcher, his sword made the air moan with the swiftness of his cut. Geralt quickly sidestepped, so the blade of the elf slipped by his sword. The elf lost his balance, the witcher spun smoothly and delivered a blow to the side of his neck, just under the ear. Only once. It was enough. The archer on the top of the stairs again tightened his bow but had no time to release the string. Geralt saw a flash, the elf cried out, threw up his hands and fell down, hitting the steps. "
@@fantasywind3923 Exactly. I only know the world of The Witcher through the games I need to pick up the books someday. But even in the games, I knew each faction at a glance thanks to their signature colors. Nilfgaard stood out wherever they appeared both thanks to their colors and their awesome armor. Same with the elves I could always tell them from humans even at a distance because, get this, THEY LOOK LIKE ELVES! And of course the sorceresses themselves. Don't get me wrong the female actors don't look bad at all in fact I consider them good looking but they are supposed to be beyond "good looking". They literally use magic to make themselves look absurdly beautiful. That also failed to be the case in the show for obvious reasons. Oh, and something I noticed while reading that part I assume is from the book. Something the showwriters seem to have failed to notice. Geralt, the Witcher, the main character of the whole goddamn world, is actually a part of it. Fancy that. And don't get me started on that horrid as sin "show" the rings of power. It's just another case of wanna-be writers being given the literal guidebook to success and throwing it away for the dumbest possible reasons.
@@mikezackman2093 yep, Geralt involvement in the events and actually his actions having impact on them is important thing, he is a protagonist, though obviously many other characters also get their time, and we can say Ciri is a protagonist as well, but the show's third season really sidelines Geralt depriving him of his agency. Regarding casting choices for sorceresses,...honestly only actress for Tissaia and Sabrina were alright rest were ughh awful choices and then also comes the problem with costumes, creating characterization, and general aesthetic choices there is a problem with those in the show from the very start, from the very first season witcher on netflix had problems with the visuals (hell for example even the locations where they were shooting seem bland, even though they could have used beautiful landscapes, like in the story Limits of the Possible, the mountain areas, they could have used the most picturesque locations to show off...but they didn't and it all just looks grey and uninteresting in the show!).
@@fantasywind3923 Oh absolutely everything from the costumes to the locations is very bland compared to what could have been. Not like they were lacking references or anything. But clearly, they didn't know how to do that or didn't want to and that's the whole feeling I get from everything in the show. The entire team is inexperienced, unskilled, and have the wrong vision for the material. They are too focused on what they think is best for a good story and too obsessed with their own beliefs.
Yeah, I'm sure you appreciate shield-surfing and elephant-surfing. But yeah, senseless special effects devoid of any logic are so much better when PJ does them. Who cares about logic or what the old fool of a Tolkien actually wrote...
@@ohauss Wow, you have been plaguing the comment section. Is this your attempt to defend a poorly-written show like that of the Netflix Witcher series... through a strawman? smh. Seriously, stop being emotional and actually craft a comment to what OP has written and not what you think OP has written. ok? lmao
i actually agree with ohauss witcher fight scenes are just more entertaining the best being vs renley lotr scenes were imo pretty bland @@robertmcdougall1144
Honestly, for me, the most prominant thing, the mages are primarily ranged. The Elves are primarily melee, who have prepared for the mages' protection magic, and yet, despite all the elves having swords, they just stick to their side of the room and dont really do anything.
That seems to be an issue with the writers not understanding the mentality of combat. Each side would want to kill the other side as fast as they can. Instead they do a lot of posing.
@@JaneXemylixa No, there are plenty of people, me included, that have never been to war or any serious fight who still know that truth. They jsut think it has to look cool but don't understand what that means.
@@jasperzanovich2504 No they just don't care. Normally someone who doesn't understand something knows they don't and go out of their way to find out. These people just don't give a sh*t and when asked why it ended up so poorly they just insist it's fine the way it is because you're too stupid to understand anything more complicated.
In the topic of both structure and stakes, an essential elements to writing fights scene is the "condition of victory". For all party involved. The audience needs to know (or at least made to believe) what each side need to achieve to progress further toward their goals. It's the direction, the marker that allow to understand how the battle progress, and to care about the characters trying their hardest to grasp it. It's also a very good tool for twists and surprises (a vilain can lose a battle but actually get his hands on what was truly important for him while the good guys were deceived away for example). In the case of Helm's deep, Uruk victory is conditionned by "killing everyone" (or at least the King). The good guys condition is "defeat the Uruk" (since they can't flee). We would think that translate to "killing them all" (since they won't giving up). A dauting prospect... but actually the true condition is "survive long enough". And that's the surprise that suddenly strike us as Aragorn remember the words of Gandalf... by holding the line long enough to see the light of the fifth day, the heroes allowed Eomer and his riders to come back in time to save them, thus securing victory even if THEY didn't win the battle. And yes, being clear and consistent about each side's capacity is crucial. I didn't watch the witcher battle but that moment where Francesca stay iddle in the middle of a room filled with FREAKING MAGES only to have her husband (what's his name again? ha, right, don't care...) getting disintegrated in the most cliche manner despite being able of magic shield is the prime example of what NOT to do. (side note: that's why you DON'T write battle with magic unless the magic is very properly defined in its capacities and limits. It's isn't the case in the books, but that works we never see true fight relying heavily on magic. Fantasy show however relying of basic coloroured pew pew, firebolt guns and once-in-a-while-out-of-nowhere victory button spell are an abomination).
I think you are right and that the battle of helms deep is a good example for that, but I think you misunderstood the connection. The goal of the uruks is to 'get into the fortress and then slaughter everyone by sheer number' whilst the goal of the defenders is 'prevent them from swarming us inside the fortress'. Because then the director and editors can create a swinging battle for the viewers. 'Oh no, the orcs have ladders!' 'well, our Allies can hold the walls.' 'Now they have a Ram and break through!' 'Aragorn and Gimli bought much needed time!' 'They broke through the wall!' 'Our Allies are fleeing' Etc.
On the magical spell bit, the battle of helms deep is a masterful display of the subtle use of it. As the rohirim charge the Uruks, we see another element of goals and stakes as the uruks line up their pikes to turn this last minute heroic entrance into a slaughter. But instead of Gandalf sending lightning or creating a force barrier, light that can be mistaken for a sunrise comes up to blind the Uruks, winning the battle.
@@seogoratjk It isn't light that can be mistaken for a sunrise, it *IS* the sunrise. Hence why Gandalf says to look to the east "at first light on the fifth day." Gandalf knows that at sunrise, sunlight will pour into the valley and blind those looking east. He uses no magic at all, just wisdom. As you say though, Gandalf almost never uses visible magic, and this was a stylistic choice of Peter Jackson's that I very much like. When Gandalf and Sauron (edit: SARUMAN) are fighting at Isengard, they're basically just whooping on each other with invisible magic strikes. If the Witcher production team had written that scene, it would have been lightning blobs and fire spells all over the place. Thankfully we weren't subjected to that.
Source material is not merely about the way characters act, what they say, it's about tone. The opening of TW battle has two groups line up opposite each other like they're about to engage in a dance off, not a battle that can destroy entire armies. Helms Deep, in comparison is dark, it's raining, and the look on Théoden's face, all set the tone so that before a single frame as moved, you immediately know this is a life or death struggle. PJ took LOTR source seriously, Hissrich does not take The Witcher source material seriously.
Interesting. I read the first book years ago, but never checked out the show because I heard about as much. Which is a bummer because the lead actress is fantastic, especially in gone girl
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial It just means you have touched on a great systemic problem in writing. You honestly could do this whole video again almost verbatim for Wheel of time.
That show is so bland, I don't care about a single character in that show, hell the main bad guy and Padan Fain are both more interesting than all of them combined. Yet the show insists on making episode after episode of melodrama shit between these characters instead of moving the plot forward. I feel likewise about the rings of power show, is there a reason why all these shows are so fuckin bland, like is it studio meddling, lack of good writers, approval by committee / algorithm based decision making, like what is it ?
"Alas, my boyfriend is naught but goop." Powerful stuff. When he Popped Like A Water Baloon and she screamed covered in his goop, I laughed. Surely not the reaction intended by the writers when they composed the death scene of whoever he was.
You make an excellent point about the world building in LotR. I watched those movies the first time when I was just a boy without reading the books but understood what was going without much thinking, because everything is either shown or clearly explained. At all points you know what the stakes are and who is fighting who. Compare that to the witcher series, which I watched in my late 20s/early 30s, after reading the books (admittedly it has been a while) AND playing all 3 Witcher games and even then I sometimes had trouble figuring out what was happening.
I've played Witcher 2 and Witcher 3 before watching the Nexflix series. And due to all the jumping around in the timeline i had to look up and explanation of what the hell was going on. Only to find out is a jumbled mess of the first book / first game. I was aware of these events that happens in the first part of Geralt's story, but most of it is explained through call backs and such in the 2nd and 3rd game, where i get the baseline of what happened. Though the Netflix series didn't even try to do that.
Scale is also important to establish before a battle begins. For Helms deep they used multiple shots panning out and around the fortress to show the ramparts and the numbers of attacking orcs and defending humans. Contrast that with the Battle of the Bastards from GoT where you never have any idea how many people are involved or what could or couldn't effect the outcome battle.
Agreed about the Battle of the Bastards. A lot of people seem to love it, but for a show that's supposedly gritty and realistic, GoT was so often ridiculously dumb about battle tactics. Sansa never told Jon that a large force of cavalry would soon be arriving because . . . why again? (Answer: The writers by this point seemed to think that yelling "HAHA! SURPRISE!" at viewers was the ultimate screenwriting achievement, much more so than creating characters who behave like rational or realistic human beings.)
For me, the best battle in GoT was Battle of the Wall. While not perfect, I felt at least that one had good battle tactics, same for King's Landing. But Battle of the Bastards was just visual spectacle. Looking beyond that, it was dumb AF.
Game of Thrones: One of the most successful American TV series of all time, riddled with multiple plots involving regional and global politics, as well as several interpersonal storylines. Viewership in the US was just as high as abroad. So the lie that Americans are too dumb to understand the politics of this show's world is just that. A lie.
I also hate how, like "everybody hates how we dumbed down the show, but we simply HAD to dumb down the show or else viewers wouldn't like it" is, on its face, pretty fucking dumb. If you dumbed down the show so people would like it, then how come PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT?
LOL. Sorry, but having multiple plots doesn't mean there's necessarily anything to understand. Worshipping the great God GRRM isn't "understanding" - his politics has huge logic gaps stemming from himself not understanding why certain historical events that inspired him happened the way they happened - and nothing shows that more than the Red Wedding.
Im pretty sure the point is that GoT clearly has more established/explained geopolitical landscape than does the Witcher and people still watched it. I mean, EACH show starts with a map showing where things will happen in the show. I know at least a few people who watched GoT SPECIFICALLY because the power games and political intrigue attracted them. The various factions and then general gols in GoT are well-characterized pretty much in the first season and there are characters from each house whom viewers can relate to. Pointing out the GRRM's understanding of Geopolitics is flawed has nothing really to do with the point the video is making. Generally, across about the first 4 seasons the politics in GoT are fairly extensive for a fantasy show and intelligble to viewers. In any case, assuming the worst of your audience is almost a guaranteed means to make sure your show is garbage. What good productions do when faced with complexity is craft in a way so it can be digestible by the audiance; saying Americans are too dumb too understand is really just saying "im too dumb and lazy to portray it". @@ohauss
Weird as it sounds, what turns me off about these Netflix churn and burn fantasy battle is how vivid, clean, and bright all the colors and outfits are.
Teh Lurd Of Teh Reings actually made a video of him; 'The Return of the Bowmaster'. I find it absolutely hilarious and ridiculous, well worth a watch! ALL HAIL THE BOWMASTER!!! P.S. 'descended' is a verb, 'descendent' is a noun (someone or something which has descended), which would be the correct form to use here. Cheers!
@@john.premose I see what you mean, and I think it would be more helpful if you would then go on to explain how to use it correctly. At least it's not "there" instead of "they're", small victory :).
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Extended (can’t be bothered to watch the theatrical cuts now) but they cut about 15 mins of each for the ads I think, minor scenes like Eowyn’s song but we were so mad😂
I believe people would still be invested in the Battle of Helm's Deep, even without main characters simply because the stakes were so high and the battle sequence was so epic. Losing that battle essentially means the end of humans, elves and hobbits. Looking back, I didn't even fear for the safety of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas because I knew they were so badass they'd make it out somehow, even if the battle was lost.
It's really interesting battle to see. The rohan has a multi layer strong defence but there is a sea of orcs who seem stronger than your average Rohan reservist in 1vs 1 fight. We can see how tide of battle moves back and forth. There is actions and counter actions.
"I believe people would still be invested in the Battle of Helm's Deep" Sorry but almost everyone who wasn't a child when the LOTR movies were released hated them. They are very unfaithful to the book and contain way too much dumb humour, and completely lack gravitas. If you wonder why stuff like the Witcher got ruined it is essentially because people like you gave a massive pass to Jackson and his terrible scriptwriters to ruin Tolkien's work and it has been happening ever since as a direct result.
@@pretentiouscritic6513 Worst take I've ever heard. The movies were very well received, crushed it at the box office, and are still regarded as some of the best, if not the best, movies of all time. The most pretentious thing is believing that everyone else believes something just because you do.
@@Crimsonfangg You obviously aren't old enough to remember the mixed reaction at the time, and worse are incapable of simply googling box office numbers - none of the films are anywhere near the top grossing films of all time despite the fact the book outsold almost literally every other book ever written. The books were hated by the Tolkien estate and most of the older fans. It is only people like you who obviously aren't smart enough to read a book who write endless fanboy comments online that liked them. Either way it doesn't matter whether you liked them or not anyway: the point was not that they suck it was that they are not remotely faithful to the original book: which you didn't understand because you are obviously too intellectually limited to read anything.
The difference between Peter Jackson and his entire production team and Netflix: - Passion and full respect for the source material. - Proper visual storytelling - Attention to details - Perfect cast - Perfect soundtrack - Breaking barriers in special effects - Respect the author and the fan community - Zero interest in political messaging and many more... Netflix will never reach these points, not even a single one.
@@an6153 Today's "entertainment" is all about "the political message" while the stories are somewhere left at the bottom of the sack - we need more diverse cast cause white men bad and racists, we need more strong and independent women aka mary sues and emasculate men because sexism and patriarchy we need representation, cause viewers can't relate to the characters unless it fits their skin color, we need inclusion cause everything has to be rainbow shit.
Damn, I have a bachelor of fine arts and studied film in college, and I made the exact same Comparison with my old college roommate when watching this fight. You took the words right out of my mouth. Great video!!
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial studied at MCAD in Minneapolis Minnesota, my professor Tom Pope is good friends with John Carpenter so of course we studied the Thing 1982
This was one of the best videos I've seen on the show. Thank you for not bashing it. Hopefully Netflix sees this. It's objective enough to not come off as hating.
I really enjoyed ( though could see flaws) up through season 2. But with the departure of Henry cavil and the just downright nonsensical direction of season 3, I've felt the need to discuss the shows issues. I think whats odd is now the show feels like it views the audience as the enemy. I get why people who were deeply invested in the books took problem with the direction of seasons 1 and 2, but now the choices they are making seem to not even reward those who initially enjoyed the show. Very strange to watch unfold. But if making content on youtube has taught me anything, its that the audience always has to come first
He did another video on season 3 that was also good. It’s nice to find a creator that doesn’t just complain about stuff, but actually offers critical analysis and positivity
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Yeah, it has a lot of problems. More than some random producers thinking the audience is stupid, the showrunner Lauren had made some alarming comments that she wanted to focus on the female characters and not Geralt, that she never liked fantasy an barely finished the first Witcher book, and she specifically looked for writers who were NOT diehard Witcher fans. Overall I thought S3 was slightly better than S2, but overall this show was amazing IP put into the hands of people who have no respect for the source material. It's a recipe for disaster. I'm personally not coming back for S4, but there's a lot Netflix can learn from.
@@Asteroids50There are more of them. Neon Knight for example had a fair, if strict analysis of all the show's faults that was ultimately kinder than what I would've expected.
I agree with most of this. The elf lady (Don't know her name and don't care.) is a writing nightmare. In season one we establish the eleven "king" when Gerralt gets captured by him. We establish that his people flock to him even with little hope. We establish that he is a stubborn in that he insists on fighting for lands his people already lost a long time ago rather than find a safer area where he can rebuild. Then in season two, he is somehow smitten by a stranger and now she runs the show. We are given some vague reason being she has dreams or something. I forgot and don't care. While the "king" guy has honor (he let Gerralt and Dandelion go) She doesn't. She is driven by vengeance and some flimsy idea of care for her people. She is convinced to partner up with the Nilgard when it would be more obvious a solution to wait out the war. Then she goes out and kills all the infants in the city via a spell. This will not make the people she teamed up with very happy. In season three she is somehow buddies with the Nilgar wizard. How did this connection happen? Plus why would she do this once she burned the bridge with infant genocide. This video already covered the mess of the battle. I get the elf lady wants elf lands back and aratuza is one of the elf places. But this is thin. Maybe if there was a scene where the Nilgard wizard is convincing her the mages are manipulating the kingdoms and they are the real threat? There are plenty of tangential scenes that could have been cut to provide time for scenes that brought depth and motivation to the characters, even added to the global situation, as they did in Witcher 3.
I called the elf lady Chelsea one time because I couldn’t remember her name. But yeah I agree this felt out of place. Filavandrel was the king and then he just wasn’t important anymore
@@Asteroids50the problem is, in the books Filavandrel is not the king of the elves but only the leader of the free elves in Dol Blathana (where the episode with the sylvan takes place). When Francesca Findabair (elf lady) becomes queen of Dol Blathana by Nilfgaards grace AFTER the coup on Thanedd Isle for her part in it Filavendrel becomes her Advisor. Additionally, the first meeting of Geralt and Jaskier and their adventure in Dol Blathana is set about 10-20 years before the main plot and the coup on Thanedd Isle.
They stuck with the books in the first season and went off the rails after that. I agree, the books are different but my intention was the same as the video creature. To talk about the tv show plot, characters, and writting.@@robertkinz6642
Francesca Findabair (aka elf lady aka Enid an Gleanna) is probably the most butchered character in the show, the whole dreams and baby plot doesn't even happen in the books it's purely show conjecture, she's actually one of the Archmages of Aretuza and Vilgefortz's co-conspirator in this whole betrayal schtick.
@@owendewaal9805this would be super cool to see in the show. I wish they had set this up. The show made it feel like a surprise. Like I didn’t know Francesca and Vilgefortz even knew each other!
I remember watching that episode thinking I know they really want this to seem dramatic and large, but it feels like a couple of people fighting and the big magic sacrifice didn’t do anything or harm her.
I just want to understand why those dumb mages would stand around in an enclosed space taking arrow after arrow from magicless elves, instead of dispersing / teleporting away and taking them out from a distance guerilla style, heck that fortress is their home, surely they would know how to navigate it better than outsiders
@@ohaussno what he means is that the entire episode is devoid of logic. Go back to your Netflix writer buddies, buy a brain, and try being better writers.
@@ohauss 40,000?? Id be happy with 40. Didn't they expressly say something about it only being 16 elves or something? Maybe 20? So one dies to haduken (crazy powerful, better not use that to great effect ever again or by anyone else) a few more to lightning, a few to misc. spells... how is the entire Brotherhood of Mages struggling to fight like, a dozen elves with arrows? And all the fighting takes place in a very small courtyard. This "epic battle for the future of mages and elves on the continent" is a stupid 20 v 20. In S1 one witch crushed the spines of like 40 charging soldiers, in this? Nah. Yen levelled a few acres of forest and men with her fire, Stregobor? Maybe got another 1 or 2 / 20 with his fire.
I mean the chance of showing ACTUAL battles was wasted by the show, I mean the events on Thanedd are a skirmish in comparison, but when the coup on Thanedd was taking place there was supposed to be Nilfgaardian second invasion, kingdoms of Aedirn and Rivia were attacked, there were sieges and serious battles like battle of Aldersberg the siege and sack of Vengerberg and so on!!! The war broke out with the powerful nilfgaardian army invading the northern kingdoms! They had source material to depict huge battles for real! Like the battle of Marnadal in Cintra in the first episode of season 1! Witcher Time of Contempt book which is supposed to be material for the third season has the whole events of the war described: " 'Nilfgaard attacked Lyria and Aedirn,' began the bard after a while. 'Without any declaration of war. The reason said to be an attack by Demavends army on some border fortress while the sorcerers met in Thanedd. Some say it was a provocation, that those were Nilfgaardian forces dressed as Demavends soldiers. How it truly was, we will never know probably. In any case, the Nilfgaardian answer was very swift and massive. A massive army crossed the borders, one that had to be collected in Dol Angra for weeks, months even. Spalla and Scala, the Lyrian border fortresses were destroyed while marching. Rivia was prepared for months of siege, but surrendered after just 2 days. The merchants and guilds were demanding it. They were promised, that if the city opens its gates and pays ranson, it will not be ransacked...' 'Was the promise honored? 'It was' 'Remarkable.' The witchers voice changed again. 'Honoring promises in these times? Not to mention, that in the past there were no promises, and no one expected them. The merchants and craftsmen did not open city gates in the past, but were defending the walls, everyone at their outpost or war machine.' 'Money has no country Geralt. The merchants dont care under whose flag they earn money. And the Nilfgaardian paladins dont care whose taxes they collect. The dead don't earn money, nor do they pay taxes.' 'Continue.' 'After the surrender of Rivia, the Nilfgaardian army continued to the north. They almost did not face any resistance. Demavend and Meve were pulling their soldiers back, because they could not create a line, and begin the decisive battle. So the Nilfgaardians got to Aldesberg. To prevent a blockade, Demavend and Meve decided to go to battle. The formation of their armies wasnt the best.. Dammit if there was more light I could draw you...' " ... "The kingdoms of Aedirn and Lyria could barely muster up three thousand cavalry and ten thousand footman, and about a fifth was cut off the battle during the first days, cut off in besieged outposts and fortresses. Part of the remaining army, the enemy had to reposition to the rear and guard their flanks, endangered by attacks of our light cavalry or the ambushes of Scoia'tael commandos. The remaining five or six thousand , in that no more than twelve hundred armored knights, stood in the fields in front of Aldesberg. Coehoorn threw a thirteen thousand army at them, in that ten banners of heavy cavalry, the blooming nilfgaardian knighthood. And now they are celebrating, brawling and demanding beer. Victory! What a surprise... " ... "'Vengenberg fell after a week,' added Dandelion. 'You will be surprised, but there the guilds defended bastions and their sections of wall until their last breath. The attackers killed the castle crew, defenders of the city and anyone who lived therein, six thousand people total. A massive escape ensued after that. The crushed squads and civilians began to escape to Temeria and Redania. Crowds of refugees stretched through the Pontar valley and Mahakaman foothills. But many were not able to escape; the nilfgaardian light cavalry were hunting them, cutting them off... Do you know why ?' 'I don't. I don't understand... I don't know much about warfare, Dandelion.' 'They wanted prisoners. Slaves. They wanted to catch as many people as possible. That is the cheapest work force in Nilfgaard. Thats why they were so focused on hunting refugees. It was a big hunt on people, Geralt. An easy hunt. Because the army was routed and no one defended the poor.' 'No one?' 'Almost no one.' " In any case the magical battle between sorcerers in the book also was quite full of effective scenes :). " 'It is Tissaia's doing. She suddenly decided on which side to stand. She has removed the block, dissipating the aura and neutralizing the dimeritium. Then everyone jumped at each other's throats! Vilgefortz and Terranova on one side, and Philippa and Sabrina on the other... The columns broke and the roof collapsed... And Francesca opened the entrance to the basement and then, there were these elven devils... We shouted that we were just neutral but Vilgefortz laughed. Before we could build a shield, Drithelm received an eye through the eye, then covered him like a hedgehog... I did not stay to await the development of the issue. Marti, do you have much left to do? We have to get out of here!' " If the magic effects shown were tiny bit more impressive, people actually shooting lightning, fireballs, explosions etc. :)
The reality is, you are comparing the writing of JRR Tolkien (because Peter Jackson successfuly stuck to the source material) to the writers of the witcher tv show. There was never any hope.
As someone who stopped watching Witcher halfway throught the battle of Aretuza, I 100% approve of what you are saying. Even though the Battle of Helms deep had some minor flaws (elves being there, etc.) I have never heard of someone just walking out from cinema while the Battle of Helms Deep unfolds.
The point about Character is especially ironic considering the Witcher is the most character focused fantasy series (books) out there. The show really does miss the point of the books lol :(
I'm fine if you want to take a story in a new direction, but the creators of the Netflix show dont seem to have a vision theyre sticking too. So no matter what you like about the witcher, no one is happy
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I think they’ve changed everything so much, i really don’t understand why they made ‘The Witcher’ and not a new IP. Could’ve made it more suited to their audience of ‘younger Americans’ then. But yeah i agree the show is convoluted and contradictory. Like when someone kills one baby we should feel bad? But then when someone murders hundreds in Oxenfurt we should feel bad for the murderer. Nothing works, like you said. Like season 3 was all about retconning season 2 so it can actually tell the story of the books a little bit, but that then sabotages their (albeit not very good) creative vision, leading to a show that just doesnt know what it wants to be.
@@wjaston4161"i really don't understand why they made 'The Witcher' and not a new IP." The reason for that is obvious. I watched the Witcher because I liked the books. I wouldn't have watched a new IP. Being part of an existing and beloved IP made the show an instant hit.
My prediction for the three requirements: 1: Stakes 2: Winning conditions 3: Understandable progression in who is winning Edit: 2 out of three, not bad. But yeah, I agree with significance, and can't believe I didn't state it, because one of the things I always point out as being the reason that all modern cgi filled spectacles fail to impress is because they throw as much visually impressive stuff on screen as possible, without ever taking the time to show the audience THAT it is impressive. If everything is special, nothing is. If you want us to marvel at something, then the show needs to take time to show that it is impressive, have music swell up, take the time to show the characters gazing at it. One of my favorite shots in Lord of the rings is when they enter the great realm, and dwarf city, of dwarrowdelf. Despite it not being that impressive design wise, just a big hall with pillars. But the music swells, and we the characters marvel "that's an eye opener and no mistake". Similarly, one of my favorite shots in GoT was when Sam first saw the library, because the focus is on his reaction, and I feel the significance through him. Compare that with the hundreds of alien worlds and cities in Marvel movies, which I couldn't care less about since the characters don't either. The only place I remotely cared about was Thanos' home world, since he actually stated how beautiful it used to be and we see him caring.
Following the source material isn't a subjective thing. Its objective. Take any fan base or any age and NO ONE would say, "yes change everything. I don't want to see any resemblance of what I enjoyed about the original source material."
I mean by definition it is subjective. Objectively it increases the odds of angering fans. But whether or not its a nad choice artistically is subjective
@TheWritersBlockOfficial Calling a Spear when it's a Sword doesn't make it subjective. As for artistic reasons, it is objectively stupid. There is a difference between adapting because it doesn't fit the new media as to changing the art that is already there. If the story has no or little resemblance to its original, you end up with stories that are just piggy backing off the success of the original. There's a difference between adding your own artistic ideas and riding the fame of the original source material.
Changes have to happen to change mediums. We cant just watch geralt ride roach for an hr while he thinks about cintran politics. The subjective thing that makes the changes good or bad is if they remain thematically and narratively consistent. It’s subjective because some people will see issues where others dont, but if you do it right everyone can enjoy the adaptation as a stand alone work. Jackson greatly abbreviated frodo leaving the shire, ommited tom bombadil and the forest, the barrow weights, etc. he rolled characters together to make the movies version of arwin, etc. these are really quite large changes but they dont actually effect the characters actions in relation to their motivations, or the overall plot. On the rare cases where they do, the plot is changed to reflect the other changes. This makes the adaptation, which has to make changes, internally consistent.
Thinking back to helmsdeep, where you can rebuild the entire fight in memorable moments. The rain The first arrow Ladders The one enemy Legolas didn't kill Holding the front door etc. You make good points.
I’ve been working on a fantasy novel of my own for a few years and honestly, The Witcher season 3 has been a case study on how to not world build. Everything from the geography to magic system is all over the place and varies wildly depending on what the story needs.
The problem I hace with most TV series these days is they can't let the characters ever look real. They always have to look attractive, even when they're supposedly having complex emotions or in situations where nobodu realistically could keep a sexy bedroom expression on their face.
Have you even watched The Witcher? Or are you saying that to contrast this show? Because although the witches are supposed to be gorgeous, they're... meh. Frankly, the one reminds me of Yzma from Emperor's New Groove. And they put at straight-up ugly characters in a sex scene, which nobody wants to see that.
@jatzi1526 have you ever seen a person cry heavily? It doesn't matter how beautiful you are - you will not look beautiful in that moment. So yeah, I agree with the OP, that's why emotions do not feel real in modern shows - they don't allow their mains to lose themselves in real emotions - wail, ugly cry, etc
A word about the Bowmaster. (The old man in helms deep.) When he fires the arrow, Aragorn calls hold in Elvish, because he thought only an elf could make that shot.
One more thing I would have liked to see added as a secret ingredient is a distinctive way to show which characters are on which side. The obvious answer here would be what weaponry they're using, but with how quick the shots were, it wasn't quite enough. It's just random people thrashing around in slow-mo with blood on them.
How something is visually represented plays a MAJOR role in how it is perceived. It's clear that the people working on The Witcher don't understand any concept of scale at all. Especially when it comes to larger conflicts between nation-states (since that's clearly the focus of the story they're telling, that's how I'm evaluating it). This is one area Peter Jackson had an absolute mastery over in LOTR, scale. Helm's Deep *feels* like a conflict between two major powers, because all of Helm's Deep's climactic moments are massive in both scope and scale (The Orcs breaching the wall, Gimli and Aragorn's escape from the staircase, etc.) While the major climax of Aretuza takes place in a single, mid-sized room. Looking closer to a magical barfight than a grand battle between armies and nations. It's just kinda anti-climactic when you are expecting a "Battle," and end up with about 25-30 people duking out in a room that barely fits them all.
The other day I was talking to a friend that played the Witcher games. I never played them myself, but I love fantasy, so I was eager to start this show. We were both disappointed, especially in this last season, and one the reasons we agreed on was that the factions in the show were poorly established. The best comparison my friend came up with was Game of Thrones. You have a ton of houses, dozens of cities, but show watchers easily know to which house a character belongs to, or know where a certain city is on the overall world. I had to have my friend explain to me the factions on Witcher (which turned out to be way less than I initially thought) and I needed a map to contextualize where Geralt and company were. And even so I didn't understand how, for example, on S3E1, when they needed Jaskier for the next day, they just went to a different city, got him, got back to their secret house, all in a matter of hours. TLDR: the factions are bad established, a lack of map loses me, and distance between cities doesn't seem to make sense
This goes without saying that, without a good character setup and introductory worldbuilding at the very beginning, a series end stage payoffs would not be satisfying.
When this series first came out I had just finished Witcher 3 and was so excited. To see how it all progressed is really disappointing. I honestly couldn't be bothered to even watch this season, I just lost complete interest after season 2. They truly did this series a disservice by allowing idiots who don't even like the series be in charge of making the series
For me the killer was all the little things they failed to make proper use of, like requisite for example. I knew there were shenanigans with the casting, but at least they had Henry, who was a diehard fan. You could almost feel the writers' and show runners' indifference. The series didn't feel like it was about the Witcher, but more their warped, boss babe version of the original female characters...@@LazySillyDog
@TheWritersBlockOfficial ultimately the characters are the story, and without any characters it's just an empty world. I really wish the makers of the series actually understood this and developed the characters in a way we would care about them. Every great show I've watched I liked or disliked the characters, but with this I just flat out don't care about them
Very true! In my own #starshatter decalogy, the 1st installment in a character introduction book@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Some criticized me for this choice but the fans loved it. Like you said, later down the road, I had the freedom to flesh out all the main villains. I even had the space to write them going on a villain's journey of their own.
The low quality of the main battle hurts even more since they already did it right once at the end of season 2. That battle was very well done IMO. It was clear what was at stake, the geography was clear and simple and the characters involved were established or at least established enough to care about them.
TLDR Version: This battle scene didn't work because the show writers failed to develop a real story at any point prior to this and it just looked like a bunch of larpers in a room with a camera.
also the witcher has a real issue with the power of its characters, one fight a mage is unstoppable killing multiple foes at once and in the battle they lost to a bunch of bow and arrows
I have watched only the first season. The moment I saw they left out touching moments like Braenn and Geralt searching for Ciri and how Geralt tells Ciri and Braenn a story to make falling asleep easier. It is a very touching moment. They erased that side of Geralt that is compassionate and despite what he shows to the world and what he wants to belive about himself he is more human than monster. If you have not read the books I will try to tell you this: Dryads are very recluse and do not let anyone into their secrets and I mean it when I say that. They have a name they give to others and a "secret" name, the one that they had at birth. There is alot more about dryads but this is the minimum to know for what I am about to say. Geralt earned their trust so much that Braenn revealed her true name to Geralt. This is a feat and it is huge and it speaks volumes about Geralt. Through his actions he got the leader of dryads to care about him as much as any of her girls. After Vilgefortz broke Geralt it was the dryads that healed him. Their leader commenting on how much he does not know and it isnt aware that he is loved and he is a fool for not seeing that, and many other things. The Witcher show and The Witcher books are miles apart. The characters are not the same, the focus is not the same. The Witcher show is an abomination and a trap. Altered Carbon the show is not te same as Altered Carbon the books BUT the characters are true to the books. The way characters are on screen is what you get in books except you get more insight and the events are different and Poe does not exist, in the books. I encourage everyone that read and dont read to pick up the books and see how much you are getting scammed or if there is an audiobook, listen to it if reading is not your thing.
"show me a single shot from any of the movies and I know where the scene takes place" - yeah, but that's probably because you, same as I, know LOTR movies by heart and knows every scene by heart :D
While I mostly agree, I think that there are some examples that don't quite fit- off the top of my head, all from Star Wars. The Battle of Scarif (Rogue One)- None of the core cast takes part in the space battle above the planet, yet it's a highlight of the battle. Personally, I find myself getting bored by the sections with the core cast in the base on the planet, and far more engaged with the stuff in space. The Battle of Hoth (TESB)- While Luke is originally in Rogue Squadron during this battle, he's quickly shot down. The majority of the battle does not involve him. The Battle of Endor (ROTJ)- Lando is probably the most major character in the space section of this battle. I guess what these all have in common is that they're all linked to other battles, conflicts, or situations in which the outcome of the larger battle can still affect our heroes. The battle above Scarif lets Jyn send the plans off planet. Hoth buys time for Han and Leia to escape Echo Base. And on Endor, Han and Leia actually save the Rebel fleet by powering down the Shield Bunker. So, they're all connected, even if not directly involved.
Shout out to ma boyo from Teh Lurd of Teh Reings, the Bowmaster! "He doesn't even have a name... Look at this guy..." what does this narrator know! The real hero of Helms Deep
Before the Helm's Deep battle. They show the mom and her kids in the westfold fleeing orcs, then the kids show up all starving and thirsty. They reunite before the battle starts, so you're like, "for the keeeeeeeds!"
"So Yen shows up and asks the elf lady to stop, but she doesn't listen." 😂🤣That line was better written and delivered than any of the dialogue in this show
Denethor eating tomatoes always freaked me out also. Like why would you bite it like that and spray the juice everywhere. And its dripping down his chin as well. Disgusting human.
To be upfront, the Thanedd Coupe in the books was also largely mage-based, and the few characters we see in the books that Geralt encounters aren't people we really care for. People like Artaud, Keira Metz, and Sabrina Glevessig, each of whom pose different problems for Geralt as he ascends to Garstang in order to find Ciri (who in the books was taken to Aretuza for the ball, and is taken to Garstang to serve as an augur in trance for the mages). Geralt basically sneaks around and helps Keira reach safety, before ascending to find Triss, who informs him about what had transpired above. Most of what we see in the show's interpretation is pretty similar to the book scene, with some important distinctions. Geralt was cleared by Philippa and blinded by Triss to prevent him from interfering in their affairs during the meeting. Several mages (including Artaud) were harassed and even killed, leading the sorceresses to panic. Philippa frees Geralt, right before the battle begins, at which point Tissaia breaks the spell Philippa had cast over the tower, and the Nilfgaardian mages begin their assault, allowing the Scoia'tael into Aretuza. We also hear in the books that the majority of the battle takes place on the upper levels, while down below the party continues, mostly unaware of the attack. It is noted that Yen got Ciri out of the tower, and Ciri fled from Cahir, escaping toward another town by using her training, rather than directly fighting him. The fight between Geralt and Vilgefortz is pretty similar in the book, but there is a lot more tension that is built up due to a much longer dialogue between them during the party (Vilgefortz shows off the paintings that his assistant made, as well as harasses and takes the piss on Geralt for his neutrality, trying to make him join his side). But the injuries sustained are the same, as well as the later outcome. Politics in the books are also a lot more convoluted, as we see more of the side politics from the Kings' perspectives, and from that of Yennefer and Dandilion, so the stakes for the Thanedd Coupe are much higher. In the books, it amounts to this- Nilfgaard needs to handicap the Northern Kingdoms, but the mages are too powerful and too influential to let them take it easily. The Northern Kingdoms no longer trust their mages due to their cocksure manipulations and consistent scheming, so they make plans of their own without the mages around. The Scoia'tael are forced to serve Nilfgaard to get Dol Blathanna for their people, and both Ida Emmean and Francesca Findabair lead the elves beside Cahir during the assault, much to the chagrin of Tissaia and the others. Ciri falls somewhere in the middle - the North by this point believes her to be dead, so they no longer need her, and planned to instill a regent in Cintra after taking it back. Nilfgaard still needs her, so they refuse to let her go easily, and constantly send new agents after her. If Nilfgaard succeeds, they will subjugate all the kingdoms and enforce new imperialistic and repressive ideals on the people, while also promoting freedom for the elder races (who we hear from a lot in the books, often stating that they really could care less about Nilfgaard's offer, since it is still a human empire, and that means they will always be second-class, especially in terms of the Aen Seidhe and the Dwarves.
When it came to the kingdoms I was SO LOST thoughout the whole series, and I kinda thought it was my fault not being able to remember things (maybe it is, partly lol); but the point you make about locations and the lack of visuals (and meaningful information on them too) makes SO MUCH SENSE!!!
You just made me want to go play some more of the Witcher 3 game, where at least there is a understandable plot, characters I like, characters I don't like, learn how to make and use the potions, the signals, learn more about the other Witchers and have something called fun and enjoyment in a fantasy world that is still somehow made to feel believable and real. Where you do have strong female characters, different races and creatures that don't have to be black to be considered different or an outcast. If I do have one beef about the Witcher 3 games though, I get that the sorcerers and magic uses are all suppose to be beautiful but why does every single female magic user Gerald interacts with seem to have a rather low cut top that damn near leaves their breasts exposed? You can be beautiful and dress beautifully without looking like a tavern wrench slut in the process. Ok, that my rant as a female over with and the only thing I kind of wish they would change.
I mean, the sorceresses are beautiful by their own magic and dress sexily to achieve their aims of manipulating kings. One mage in the games (Triss) should not be exposing her breasts because of the Battle of Sodden. The show actually does that better than the games for her, inexplicably, but then the show has made Margarita a body positive large black woman instead of the most beautiful human alive...so I don't know.
Maybe because for centuries there was a repression on the bodily exposition because of religion, and after the sexual liberation/revolution in the sixties, it became a comercial exploit to sell products? Sometimes some women use their sexuality to their advantage or financial gain, others times they're exploited because of financial situations or or abuse of a power relation. It still remains a difficult debate because, unfortunately, we don't live in an utopia. With the internet nowadays, I have the feeling that people want to impose their worldview on others while they don't take into account the many aspects a situation can have, or even judge things on a case by case but rather generalise based on their own worldviews. I don't mean this as a remark on this post, just a general observation.
I get you, but to play the devil's advocate, the way they dress is intentional. Ofc part of it is just the devs wanting them to wear those clothes, however, in the books it's actually clearly explained, and I dare say agree with Sapkowski. Some dress that way because of what @adamp6320 said, but it's more than that. (and yes, Triss should have an ugly scar on her chest) It's all about societal standards and ideals of beauty. Male sorcerers let themselves age to their 40s or even longer, because people value maturity more in men. Women on the other hand stay younger, and dress provocatively to establish that they're outside the bounds of society - it's about freedom for them. It's funny you called them that in your comment, because for example the writer states that in their society, only two types of women wore their hair long and didn't wear a cap, sorceresses and prostitutes. This is true in real life as well btw, 'brothel fashion' becoming mainstream, e.g. bright lipstick.
@@sztallone415 technically the Triss scars would not be very noticeable, she says herself that: "Damn it, I'm Triss Merigold, the Fourteenth One Killed at Sodden. There are fourteen graves at the foot of the obelisk on the Hill, but only thirteen bodies. You're amazed such a mistake could have been made? Most of the corpses were in hard-to-recognise pieces - no one identified them. The living were hard to account for, too. Of those who had known me well, Yennefer was the only one to survive, and Yennefer was blind. Others knew me fleetingly and always recognised me by my beautiful hair. And I, damn it, didn't have it any more!' Geralt held her closer. She no longer tried to push him away. 'They used the highest magics on us,' she continued in a muted voice, 'spells, elixirs, amulets and artefacts. Nothing was left wanting for the wounded heroes of the Hill. We were cured, patched up, our former appearances returned to us, our hair and sight restored. You can hardly see the marks. But I will never wear a plunging neckline again, Geralt. Never.'" Witcher, Blood of Elves So that 'you can hardly see the marks implies that the scarring is not as bad and it's maybe just her extreme reaction. In any case one can imagine the healing magic allowing for some cosmetic changes and removal of scars over time. After all magic is used to fix up the ugly or disfigured candidates for sorceresses: "Unlike priestesses and druidesses, who only unwillingly took ugly or crippled girls, sorcerers took anyone who showed evidence of a predisposition. If the child passed the first years of training, magic entered into the equation - straightening and evening out legs, repairing bones which had badly knitted, patching hare-lips, removing scars, birthmarks and pox scars. The young sorceress would become attractive because the prestige of her profession demanded it. The result was pseudo-pretty women with the angry and cold eyes of ugly girls. Girls who couldn't forget their ugliness had been covered by the mask of magic only for the prestige of their profession." Witcher, The Last Wish
Remember when The Witcher first premiered on Netflix, there were critics who criticized this movie as not worth watching. Because I loved Henry, I spoke up to defend the show, but by season 2, it seemed like the other critic wasn't wrong and when the news of Henry leaving this series and season 3... I completely agreed with the critic. It seems like the scriptwriter changed the source material too much.
Hah. My bad. It gets to me too. But it's one of the few shots from that section that lasts more than a half second so It works better in the video essay format. Sorry for the feels tho
BTW, LOTR's drawing of the bow in threatening wait pose that keeps going on for a perceived eternity is really bad and just had to lead to someone accidentally letting the arrow slip eventually. Combat bows, at that range, are not to be held on maximum tension like that, and a good bowyer, especially and old and experienced one, would understand how critical it is to ease up if safety is compromised. The guy could even have let up just a little bit but *very* slowly without making it look weak to the orc army probably too far away to notice such details. Instead he held until he couldn't anymore and then eased up out of necessity and that's when he lost grip. LOTR is full of stuff that makes people in the know about medieval warfare facepalm.
Admittedly I am no expert in medieval or ancient weaponry. I have some knowledge and I know that holding a war bow at the ready for a significant amount of time is difficult and not something you should do, but, in the context of the battle that scene is completely justified and set up quite clearly. If you watch the scene carefully you will notice that everyone around the guy is tense and have their bows at the ready, but not all of them have them drawn, arrow ready to be fired. They have their arrows set and some of them have the strings pulled, but not at full strength, simply enough to be ready to pull quickly if necessary. But some, like the guy in question, have their bows ready to shoot. And as I said that's the point of the scene. The people on the battlements are not soldiers, mercenaries or even trained militia. They are a levied force of farmers and craftsmen, and most of them are too old or too young to be on the battlefield. Most of them haven't touched a weapon in their lives. And that is why the arrow was released prematurely. It was a way to show us that the side of our heroes lacked discipline and training. A clever way to show us that the people we support are in over their heads. Also, if you watch the scene again you will see that the only ones panicking and drawing their bows and having them at the ready immediately are the human levies. They immediately draw them as the Uruks start their chanting, while the Elves stand in a disciplined line ready to start the fight when the time is right. That was done purposefully in order to showcase the difference between a disciplined, battle-hardened force and a brave, but in the end, simply levied force.
@@kpetalis OK, maybe it was a crude storytelling tool then. But if I was a pro standing next to him there, I would have told him to relax. If he knows how to hit anything with a bow, he would know not to do what he did. But if he is that almost completely untrained, then he wouldn't be able to hit much anyway. We can give some leeway, but these things happen in the context of other situations where pros in their craft do tactically stupid things, too. (Although that's probably, again, a crude means for conveying a certain mindset and vibe, and the overall bravado style of the production probably paints those issues over easily.) My meta point is that sometimes we overshoot the mark in glorifying good old works and being too merciless towards the bad new stuff. An example would be how someone may leave no good hair on the new The Little Mermaid and point out all the implausibilities and such, but the original movie had Ariel go through the pages of a book, underwater. Same with Star Trek TNG and such. There were so many quality issues with the writing in detail. They were painted over with the usually captivating story arcs and themes, but it is not a lesson in masterful writing.
@@DowlphinDude you are seriously overthinking the fuck out of these things. It's a movie. It was done that way for a purpose. What you're describing is an unimportant nitpick and coming out "well if I was next to him!" But you're not. It's a fantasy film. You don't exist in that universe. And saying that it's not an example of masterful writing??? Like what? What do you know about masterful writing anyway? You go through any film like this and youre going to find tiny problems........that's the film industry! It isn't perfect. It's not a fucking book. You don't think snipers, even experienced ones, accidentally fired off a shot early due to nerves? And you're complaining about Ariel reading a book underwater as some kind of writing issue? Like......what?! THAT is something you have a problem with? It's a fucking cartoon , dude, and you're nitpicking issues that aren't even issues in the grand scheme of things. Did you see that the animals talked? That's not realistic either, did you have a problem with that too? Shit why stop there. Go complain about how totally unrealistic it is that SpongeBob SquarePants cooks burgers underwater and see if don't come off like a pretentious nitwit who understands nothing.
the witcher season 3 battle scene looked like it was created by people playing with action figures, where the action figures stay in place until someone moves them for their lines and battle.
10:35 The shot of Francesca just standing there makes me laugh. Like she is in the middle of a fight and her guard is down and looking like she is modeling her armour for a picture or something.
One reason why the villain might be killed by something minor/uncllimactic would probably be to show that there might not always be a satisfying end/resolution (for example in vengence plotlines). But that premise (vengence) would have to be established, for example showing the personal history/cause of conflict between himi/her and the protagonist. Tissaya, as you said, had no conflict with Francesa/her husband. So why the intense look on Tissaya and "omg I'm so epic and stoic/power female" face on Francesca? xd This show is a joke.
At the end of season 2 a single random mage kills 50 soldiers in 2 seconds. In season 3 the most powerful mages get their asses handed to them by some homeless elves in their own house. Makes total sense.
It's basically like comparing a group of teenage, self-insert, highly politicized LARPers to a disciplined, veteran stage group with a firm appreciation of the art.
Henry Cavill as the Witcher is one of the hottest character ever put on screen. There it is. The reason why a crazy mess of a show became successful. I love fantasy, but the amount of people i know who don't and still watched all those episodes over and over again is WILD.
Great video. I just didnt care about this fight scene at all. Apart from anything else it appears to take place in one tiny room and no one uses any kind of tactics at all. Just stand out in the open and wait to get hit. Everything about it felt contrived and not at all realistic which completely dragged me out of the moment. The show has taken a real dip in quality since Season 1. I can onyl assume the show runners arent fans of the source material and dont know what kind of show they should be making.
@@SuddenFool yeah that figures. but surely when they looked at that scene they must have realised it didnt work on any level, wether you like the source material or not, its just bad TV
Brother is comparing the best battle sequence ever put to screen with witcher s3 its like comparing me to lebron james in dunk contest (i cant even dunk)
Same here. I was confused for all of season 3 and about half of season 2. The show made me not care about any of the characters apart from Geralt who isn't even the centre of his own story.
I mean, Nilfgaard wants to get rid of all mages aligned with the North considering said mages kinda kicked his armies ass at Sodden at the end of... season 1??
@@louiswinterhoff334 Blame the author, the 1st book of the Witcher is a collection of short-stories, not written with the intention of ever becoming a series of fantasy novels. Which meant that Season 1 was not chronological or coherent whatsoever cause the book isn't either. (Also the costume department of S1 sucked but that's another issue entirely)
