https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc.../#5507be305507
Well, leave it to Netflix to break the bad videogame movie curse.
Printable View
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insertc.../#5507be305507
Well, leave it to Netflix to break the bad videogame movie curse.
Makes me wonder how Assassin's Creed even got green lit.
Also, excuse the rant, but who writes terrible inanities like this
And then follows it up with dumb ass observations like this?Quote:
It’s hard not to be pretty excited about this prospect, as the books and games are both great, and a Netflix show seems like the logical choice for an adaption like this.
Has this guy ever seen a Netflix show? They aren't markedly violent or sexual because up until a year ago Netflix needed to pass their shit on to foreign markets. For all the clap-trap about "innovation" around them, all they've done is methodically duplicate the network model (--but now, with binge watching!) Despite rolling out in dozens of countries, their core model hasn't changed---mostly, because they still need to sell in markets like China.Quote:
An ongoing show makes sense for a story as epic as The Witcher’s [...] and Netflix will allow it to be as bloody and nudity-filled as it needs to be. And it certainly needs to be nudity-filled, which we all know is the core of The Witcher’s appeal. Joking. Sort of.
I assume the games are based on the Witcher novels, and the TV series on the novels. Which you've gotta fucking admit, is an assumption that just might be right on the money. Thus, I see a circle.
If the show's good, it isn't too much of a stretch to see it as a blueprint for how games can be adapted successfully in those instances in which there never was a book to begin with.
Actually i think the games are sequels to the book. Or visa versa. Can't remember.
Sorry, how is that a circle? We're talking two different adaptations of the same source material.
These games have an advantage because they retained a character from the novels. Games that don't do that, or have no "main character," would still face the same problem that videogame adaptations always do -- namely, that there's a big hole in the center of the narrative.
Skimming Wikipedia, it looks like the games started as direct adaptations of stories originally published in the 80s and 90s.
"At the game’s opening cutscene, Geralt is tasked with curing the king’s daughter of a curse that transforms her into a feral monster. This device introduces the player to the nature of Witcher-work. The opening is based upon the short story, titled The Witcher, from the first book in the series, The Last Wish."
Tthe first game takes place 5 years after the last book. So I was close.
I will watch at least one episode because what a Witcher does professionally is pretty cool, but the show will suffer from Geralt's blandness in a way the games avoid.
Henry Cavill to lead?
Whoa
lol.
This will be horrible.
I liked Caville, but a description I saw of “They stole a Targaryen wig from Game of Thrones set and put it on a plank of wood” is too funny and apt.
just a hair/makeup test. hopefully it'll be better in the show. more curious about how they approach it.
https://i.redd.it/d8tzglyr9p731.jpg
Not bad.
This show will be unintentionally hilarious. The potential for camp is way too high.
(Also, to nerd it out --- where's his second sword?)
Thats a pretty sweet sword (I don't know anything about the games.)
Is Henry Cavill's hair becoming the new Nic Cage's hair?
I'm hoping for "Legend of the Seeker"-level cheese, myself.
Oh God I can already picture the frothy rage over at r/games when this show debuts.Quote:
Also, apparently the show is going to be based more on the books, where the silver sword was kept on the horse most of the time.
I'm guessing camp is absolutely off the table. Too much money at stake.
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
This will not end well.