The Witcher | Official Teaser | Netflix

PhaseNoise

2[H]4U
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
2,380
dialogue is occasionally a problem with this show on the Atmos track on my expensive home theater setup. Maybe the stereo track is clearer, I didn't try it but as far as Atmos tracks go, this one is average or below. I found myself turning on subtitles or turning it up too and I have legitimate JBL cinema speakers of the type commercial cinemas use (CBT 70j-1) and a Denon 7200wa flagship AVR that is all calibrated correctly and validated with a calibrated omnimic. Having owned this setup for a couple years and watched a bunch of stuff, I can assure you it isn't the speakers or gear. Some of the dialogue is mixed low, on occassion, not bad, just not a showcase.
Stereo sound here - we had a very hard time hearing dialogue clearly. I was assuming the surround mix would be clear. Sounds like its just poorly engineered.

Everyone low-talks and they mix it strangely. Oddly, Geralt the original low talker is the one we hear the best.
 

RanceJustice

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
6,093
BTW - the registration appears broken on that site. I tried to register and it says invalid captcha. Well there is no capcha to use!

https://www.kirmiziperfect.com/downloads/rise-of-the-white-wolf-installer-version/#wpdmregister

I tried to just start the first game without the mods and was greeted to a static background while the cut scenes were going on. Specifically the walls of the Witcher castle. Then thrown into the first combat scene. MAN it looks dated, and point and click on enemies? eewww. I saw you can do a combat mod to make it more like Witcher 3. yes please!
Indeed the site itself seems to be outdated (some of the graphics don't load for the Witcher related items etc). Did you disable any of your ad-blocker or privacy related mods? Sometimes those will block capcha from showing up at all, but its entirely possible the site could be broken as well if that doesn't work. You can get most of the mods elsewhere (ie Nexusmods, moddb ) but there are some that are a little harder to find , sadly.

Yeah, well remembering how old The Witcher 1 is, without any mods its from a different era. To be honest there are ways to kinda get around the click combat, but sometimes its cumbersome to do so. One way around it is the use of the controller mod/bindings which at least feels more tactical. The game was developed in an old school, RPG style way (though there's some rhythm to the combat as well) so it won't ever really be like TW3 more real-time adventure combat. However adding mods will definitely help the game age more gracefully in every way.

Edit: I found a way around it - you have to click the "Register" up near the Wordpress icon at the top! Trying to log in or create an account from the same page as the mod won't work etc. Turn off your adblocker and privacy blocking addons (built in stuff from Firefox seems to be okay). Apparently the site is quite buggy. Even after successfully creating an account, it was difficult to login (on the WordPress prompt etc)

Edit 2: I'm going to see if I can acquire a full set of the mods I listed and their latest versions, zip it up nicely, and have them ready to go. Sadly certain mods are harder to find these days (ie Full Combat Rebalance is no longer available on Nexus. Scabbard Mod is hard to find too - luckily I think I have a local copy of that from awhile back etc) so I'll try to create a file available for those who may want to mod. If this goes we'll, I'll do something similar for those who want to play The Witcher 2
 
Last edited:

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,273
I say it is about a C, some good, some bad.
The time jumps really confused me.
That cgi gold dragon was awful. Just bad. Which is confusing b/c the first episode had a really good cgi creature (that swamp spider thing)
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
21,770
at first the different time lines were confusing as hell but by episode 6 i started figuring it out. as far as the golden dragon cgi it looked like they had to go back and edit the golden dragon later, maybe looked too similar to the GOT dragons? mind you i've yet to read the books or play the games so dunno what they're really suppose to look like.
 

Archaea

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
9,888
at first the different time lines were confusing as hell but by episode 6 i started figuring it out. as far as the golden dragon cgi it looked like they had to go back and edit the golden dragon later, maybe looked too similar to the GOT dragons? mind you i've yet to read the books or play the games so dunno what they're really suppose to look like.
Episode 7 helped with the timelines, but yes they should have made it more clear that they were jumping around. It was unnecessarily confusing and I’m not sure what that confusion gained the series.

Dragons in the Witcher 3 game look nothing like that. That was like a hallmark movie dragon from 20 years ago.

However, I liked that episode, and really liked the surprise twist, which I originally thought was a super cheesy moment mid-episode, but made sense by the end.
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,273
The more I think about it the more I wonder why even do all those time jumps/cuts. Why not start off with things x years in the past, build that back story up then just do one cut to the 'present time' or w/e.

Also they do a poor job explaining things to people. Like why did his face get all blotchy at times (I've come to discover it is called "toxicity face" but they just gloss over it like everyone should know already I guess)
Why is he always chugging potions, what do they even do? Theres a lot of little things like that which go unexplained.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ncjoe
like this

4saken

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
11,012
My wife is a huge fan of the books and has only played Witcher 3(she's not much of a gamer), but shes been very happy with it in regards to the books.
 

Droc

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2007
Messages
3,322
I really, really liked the Witcher 3, but I admit, I am not sold on the show. Its fine...but thats it, just fine.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
21,770
The more I think about it the more I wonder why even do all those time jumps/cuts. Why not start off with things x years in the past, build that back story up then just do one cut to the 'present time' or w/e.

Also they do a poor job explaining things to people. Like why did his face get all blotchy at times (I've come to discover it is called "toxicity face" but they just gloss over it like everyone should know already I guess)
Why is he always chugging potions, what do they even do? Theres a lot of little things like that which go unexplained.
basically episode one sets the current time, then the next 7 episodes show the actions of everyone that set it in motion while still following ciri who is the center of everything. from people i've talk to that read the books the show does a pretty good job following them even though it may be confusing for the people that haven't read them.

ultimately though from watching it the show was never written or directed to be a show for a general audience and was instead written for people that actually read the books and/or played the games.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
from people i've talk to that read the books the show does a pretty good job following them even though it may be confusing for the people that haven't read them.
I read them, it doesn't remotely do anything close to a good job of representing the books.

It takes the stories and butchers them into bite sized summaries, losing the essence completely. I was pretty much in shock in what little was left of the stories. I don't think there is much more in the show, than what is in the Wikipedia summary.

If you are a Witcher fan, definitely read/listen to the books. They are MUCH better.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
17,177
If you are a Witcher fan, definitely read/listen to the books. They are MUCH better.
books versus TV/movies are 2 very different mediums...you can never do a direct page for page adaptation...you have to know what to add, subtract, which characters to merge etc...certain things work better in books versus on the big screen...TV is a visual medium...of course the books are going to be better overall, same with A Song of Ice and Fire...but The Witcher Netflix series did an excellent job capturing the feel of the books and the characters...

toss a coin to your Witcher...
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
books versus TV/movies are 2 very different mediums...you can never do a direct page for page adaptation...you have to know what to add, subtract, which characters to merge etc...certain things work better in books versus on the big screen...TV is a visual medium...of course the books are going to be better overall, same with A Song of Ice and Fire...but The Witcher Netflix series did an excellent job capturing the feel of the books and the characters...
I have seen lots of Book to screen conversions, and this one is in the lower end of the spectrum. GoT/LOTR were Massively better than this. Harry potter did a better job bringing it to the screen. So did The Princess Bride, and probably under the radar for most here: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. All of these did a better job on fantasy side. On the recent SciFi side: The Expanse books were well adapted to one of the best SciFi series in years. And that was the flipping SyFy network which usually screws up everything.

Netflix absolutely butchered the Witcher stories down to a paragraph summary here, and then stirred up all the timelines into a mess, this was a sub-par showing.

With 53 on Metacritic, that isn't just my opinion.
 

PeaKr

Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
837
This show is garbage, turned it off midway through ep 2. I guess I got spoiled having recently watched Last Kingdom. Big fan of the games though, maybe I'll read the books. What a disappointment.
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,240
I enjoyed the first season enough to want to see how it plays out in the next seasons. The time jumps were a bit weird at first but once it all came together it made sense to me.
I have seen lots of Book to screen conversions, and this one is in the lower end of the spectrum. GoT/LOTR were Massively better than this. Harry potter did a better job bringing it to the screen. So did The Princess Bride, and probably under the radar for most here: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. All of these did a better job on fantasy side. On the recent SciFi side: The Expanse books were well adapted to one of the best SciFi series in years. And that was the flipping SyFy network which usually screws up everything.

Netflix absolutely butchered the Witcher stories down to a paragraph summary here, and then stirred up all the timelines into a mess, this was a sub-par showing.

With 53 on Metacritic, that isn't just my opinion.
Metacritic also puts Watchmen at an 85, and critics are raving about Batgirl. ;)
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
I enjoyed the first season enough to want to see how it plays out in the next seasons. The time jumps were a bit weird at first but once it all came together it made sense to me.

Metacritic also puts Watchmen at an 85, and critics are raving about Batgirl. ;)
I haven't watched either.

Batwoman is in the same metacritic category as Witcher (Mixed to Average), and I suspect being a CW show, it attracts a different critic mix. I won't be watching it, as it's no doubt aimed at target audience of teen girls.

I have no trouble believing Watchmen is better than the Witcher mess. Let you know after I watch it.
 
Last edited:

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,060
I have seen lots of Book to screen conversions, and this one is in the lower end of the spectrum. GoT/LOTR were Massively better than this. Harry potter did a better job bringing it to the screen. So did The Princess Bride, and probably under the radar for most here: Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. All of these did a better job on fantasy side. On the recent SciFi side: The Expanse books were well adapted to one of the best SciFi series in years. And that was the flipping SyFy network which usually screws up everything.

Netflix absolutely butchered the Witcher stories down to a paragraph summary here, and then stirred up all the timelines into a mess, this was a sub-par showing.

With 53 on Metacritic, that isn't just my opinion.
This is proof you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Holding up The Expanse as a paragon of book to screen conversion? Butchering doesn't even being to explain what they did to the books when making that show. They completely changed the motivations and character interactions of the whole crew of the ship. The very heart of the books, the crew of the Rocinante, was completely changed so childish and immature drama could be injected into the show. It wasn't until Season 3 that The Expanse was a decent show and that only occurred because the childish and immature bullshit was finally removed.

Lord of the Rings definitely isn't a paragon of perfection in translation either. There were quite a few things changed for no other reason than they could change them. Even Aragorn's motivations were completely twisted and changed in order to add more drama where drama wasn't needed. It changed the much of the feeling from the books and an important plot piece when it was done. While Lord of the Rings was still one of the better adaptations I definitely wouldn't hold it up to be a great example with how much was changed which didn't need to be changed.

You're not the first person I've seen post about the adaptation of the books to the screen. However, you are the only one making any serious complaints about it. The other people I've seen comment who have read the books have stated it was actually rather well done in conversion. It's not the same as the books and the way they handled the time jumps was confusing but the story was kept intact.
 

TaintedSquirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
9,617
Played the game a few times for a couple hours, got bored everytime.
Watched the 1st ep of the show, got bored.

The Witcher universe does not 'click' for me. I do like Henry Cavill, though.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
This is proof you don't seem to know what you're talking about. Holding up The Expanse as a paragon of book to screen conversion? Butchering doesn't even being to explain what they did to the books when making that show. They completely changed the motivations and character interactions of the whole crew of the ship. The very heart of the books, the crew of the Rocinante, was completely changed so childish and immature drama could be injected into the show. It wasn't until Season 3 that The Expanse was a decent show and that only occurred because the childish and immature bullshit was finally removed.

Lord of the Rings definitely isn't a paragon of perfection in translation either. There were quite a few things changed for no other reason than they could change them. Even Aragorn's motivations were completely twisted and changed in order to add more drama where drama wasn't needed. It changed the much of the feeling from the books and an important plot piece when it was done. While Lord of the Rings was still one of the better adaptations I definitely wouldn't hold it up to be a great example with how much was changed which didn't need to be changed.

You're not the first person I've seen post about the adaptation of the books to the screen. However, you are the only one making any serious complaints about it. The other people I've seen comment who have read the books have stated it was actually rather well done in conversion. It's not the same as the books and the way they handled the time jumps was confusing but the story was kept intact.
Regadless of what details were changed. Both the Expanse and LOTR are vastly better than the Witcher.

Congratulations on finding opinions that only match your own on the books, most people didn't read the books going, but you can find a few here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/ecj8vt
Good summary. The book made this clear but the show completely fucked it. I'm not sure if they were trying to avoid making Renfri look evil or if it was just bad writing but they completely mangled the best short-story from the book.
  • They also made Stregobor more assholeish than in the books. In the book Stregobor has his doubts and recommended isolating Renfri. Killing her was her stepmother's decision. Plus it was not Stregobor, but Council of Mages decision to first kill, and then - when they find out they made mistakes - to isolate the "cursed" girls. Plus in the books Stregobor was not told she was psychopath, he claims he personally SAW her killing puppies etc in the short time he was observing her.
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,240
Regadless of what details were changed. Both the Expanse and LOTR are vastly better than the Witcher.

Congratulations on finding opinions that only match your own on the books, most people didn't read the books going, but you can find a few here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/ecj8vt
The irony considering you're the one that started bringing up critics opinions.

I'm sure everyone here is fine with you not caring for the show though so I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue about at this point. There's not a single movie based off a book out there that is a one-to-one recreation of the book. It's never going to happen.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
I'm sure everyone here is fine with you not caring for the show though so I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue about at this point. There's not a single movie based off a book out there that is a one-to-one recreation of the book. It's never going to happen.
At this point I was retorting to the claim, that I was the only person he saw, who read the books, who had serious complaints about how it was done.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,060
At this point I was retorting to the claim, that I was the only person he saw, who read the books, who had serious complaints about how it was done.
Except that I didn't go out looking for opinions, you did. I have only commented on posts I've seen in different threads I've read and you're the only one who claimed to have read the books who said there's a huge disconnect between the books and the show.

I still think you're claim is bunk to begin with considering how you say Lord of the Rings and The Expanse are paragons of book to screen adaptations when in both instances main characters are considerably changed from the way they were in the books. For pity's sake, they turned Aragorn into a whiny, emo and indecisive character in the movies. He was absolutely nothing like that in the books. And you've pulled up a post complaining about how a couple side characters are portrayed somewhat differently?
 

Tweak42

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
609
Played the game a few times for a couple hours, got bored everytime.
Watched the 1st ep of the show, got bored.

The Witcher universe does not 'click' for me. I do like Henry Cavill, though.
I haven't played the games, my but my brother has. Fell asleep in scenes in the 1st episode but slogged through since he wanted to watch it. Got into the story by episode 4. There are some flashback sort of recap scenes later episodes so I don't think I missed anything major in episodes 1 and 2. Basically this season is character origin and world building. I expect season 2 to get into the overall series storyline.

It's been a few years since I watched season 1 of Game of Thrones, but Witcher feels somewhat similar in that there isn't a lot of hand holding and you have to make a effort to pay attention to get the most out of the series.
 

jiminator

Capt Obvious
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
11,460
watched and enjoyed the shows. problem is that they don't really come together until episode 4, and it will have lost many people by then. my wife could not watch past the first show.
the problem is not just the adaptation, it is the actual source material. the first 2 books are short story compilations that jump around in time.
if anything they did pick a few to make an overall narrative. but they should have done more to give clues about the passage of time.
if you look online you can find guides on what order to read the witcher books: by publication, chronological or split the first one with the last. so the show did not create the mess
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
17,177
Netflix absolutely butchered the Witcher stories down to a paragraph summary here, and then stirred up all the timelines into a mess, this was a sub-par showing
you do realize that the TV series is based on the first 2 short story compilations and not the first book in the main book series- Blood of Elves right?...those books go into the history and lore of the world so it made sense for the TV show to start with those...they do skip around a lot and don't really have a main narrative story...the TV version gave us a more clear history of events not really explained in depth in the books such as Yennefer's backstory and the Battle of Sodden Hill...the TV version wasn't perfect but you can tell that the showrunner has a really good understanding of all the books
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,123
I've read the books over the years, and Netflix's adaptation of The Witcher is pretty good considering that they had to adapt it to one hourish chunks. Like every other adaptation they had to merge some characters, drop sub plots and generally compact some of the storylines.

Overall they did a good job.

I for one do not mind the slower episodes, that do more world/character building than sword fights and action sequences.

I like it, and I liked Cavill's version of Geralt, which is pretty clearly heavily based on the game version.
 

ep0x73

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
2,569
mixed feelings on this 1st season. Casting could have been better, let's just say they had to be more diverse than the books
sorry but fringilla is not black and triss is supposed to be a redhead
Geralt was nailed, not sure anybody could pull off the look, figure, etc
story was mixed, the constant flashbacks then going forward made it more confusing than it should have been
I don't get how yennifer is so powerful yet at times could not even fend off one reaver yet could walk snapping her fingers and snapping necks
why don't these mag's use their powers when in danger?
scenery was good, action and what little CGI they used worked fairly well
It ended with a clear path to season 2 whenever that happens, most likely 12 months from now
 

GoodBoy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,722
Tried watching the first episode, seemed a bit boring. I really wanted to like it ... will give it a few months and try watching again.

Been streaming the expanse in 4k, and rewatching Vikings.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
I enjoyed the first season enough to want to see how it plays out in the next seasons. The time jumps were a bit weird at first but once it all came together it made sense to me.

Metacritic also puts Watchmen at an 85, and critics are raving about Batgirl. ;)
They aren't raving about "Batgirl"(Bat Woman), which is why you conventionality left out the score for that one.

Now 4 episodes into "Watchmen". The critics were right, it's another excellent HBO show.
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,240
They aren't raving about "Batgirl"(Bat Woman), which is why you conventionality left out the score for that one.

Now 4 episodes into "Watchmen". The critics were right, it's another excellent HBO show.
Thanks for the off-topic update, I can finally get some sleep.
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,240
You brought Watchmen into it, and now complain it's off topic?
I was commenting about the critics that you originally brought up about The Witcher, and how I and apparently a lot of us lowly casual viewers don't care about their opinion on something subjective like movies/shows. Take a look at the disparity of scores between the two on something like Rotten Tomatoes. It's not that difficult to comprehend, watch something and like it and keep watching it, or watch it and dislike and stop watching it. Seems pretty simple.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
I was commenting about the critics that you originally brought up about The Witcher, and how I and apparently a lot of us lowly casual viewers don't care about their opinion on something subjective like movies/shows. Take a look at the disparity of scores between the two on something like Rotten Tomatoes. It's not that difficult to comprehend, watch something and like it and keep watching it, or watch it and dislike and stop watching it. Seems pretty simple.
The "Audience" score these days isn't based on some real slice of casual viewers. Instead, it's often driven by toxic young white guys(or older ones that never grew up), that are pissed off that culture is changing to be more inclusive, and spend a disproportionate amount of their lives complaining about it, on the internet.

Take something like your other example, CW's Batwoman. It's a CW show about a female super hero, so of course it's going to be all about girl power...

Not a show I would ever watch, or review, and by the critics not a very good show, so pretty much wasted viewing if you aren't a young female.

Yet reviews are filled with angry male reviews about a show you have to wonder why(or if) they are even watching.

IMDB has a interesting option where you can see demographic breakdown of these votes:

Batwoman has an overall 3.4

Driven by:
Males: 3.0 11,039
Females: 5.9 2,094

Do you think this is actually representative of the audience of a CW network, Girl Power show, 5x as many men watched it as women?

In reality that Audience is most likely a complete inverse to the votes in the "Audience" score.

It would be interesting to get a true audience poll, but that isn't what these scores represent today.

But even that would be somewhat self selecting. IOW a real poll of actual CW viewers, would likely score the show higher, than the general public would, because it's playing to the target demo.

This is where actual critic reviews can be handy. They are less about self selection, since they often have to watch stuff because it's their job, not because they are fanboys/haters with a grudge, some may have baggage of their own one way or another, but with a decent sampling of critics the bias should average away.
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,240
The "Audience" score these days isn't based on some real slice of casual viewers. Instead, it's often driven by toxic young white guys(or older ones that never grew up), that are pissed off that culture is changing to be more inclusive, and spend a disproportionate amount of their lives complaining about it, on the internet.

Take something like your other example, CW's Batwoman. It's a CW show about a female super hero, so of course it's going to be all about girl power...

Not a show I would ever watch, or review, and by the critics not a very good show, so pretty much wasted viewing if you aren't a young female.

Yet reviews are filled with angry male reviews about a show you have to wonder why(or if) they are even watching.

IMDB has a interesting option where you can see demographic breakdown of these votes:

Batwoman has an overall 3.4

Driven by:
Males: 3.0 11,039
Females: 5.9 2,094

Do you think this is actually representative of the audience of a CW network, Girl Power show, 5x as many men watched it as women?

In reality that Audience is most likely a complete inverse to the votes in the "Audience" score.

It would be interesting to get a true audience poll, but that isn't what these scores represent today.

But even that would be somewhat self selecting. IOW a real poll of actual CW viewers, would likely score the show higher, than the general public would, because it's playing to the target demo.

This is where actual critic reviews can be handy. They are less about self selection, since they often have to watch stuff because it's their job, not because they are fanboys/haters with a grudge, some may have baggage of their own one way or another, but with a decent sampling of critics the bias should average away.
How many women do you think were buying and reading comics like Batwoman and/or Batgirl?

Anyway, I'm done. I don't care what anyone else likes and watches and likewise I don't expect anyone to agree with what I like and watch, and I'm fine with that.
 

termite

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
5,123
The "Audience" score these days isn't based on some real slice of casual viewers. Instead, it's often driven by toxic young white guys(or older ones that never grew up), that are pissed off that culture is changing to be more inclusive, and spend a disproportionate amount of their lives complaining about it, on the internet.

Take something like your other example, CW's Batwoman. It's a CW show about a female super hero, so of course it's going to be all about girl power...

Not a show I would ever watch, or review, and by the critics not a very good show, so pretty much wasted viewing if you aren't a young female.

Yet reviews are filled with angry male reviews about a show you have to wonder why(or if) they are even watching.

IMDB has a interesting option where you can see demographic breakdown of these votes:

Batwoman has an overall 3.4

Driven by:
Males: 3.0 11,039
Females: 5.9 2,094

Do you think this is actually representative of the audience of a CW network, Girl Power show, 5x as many men watched it as women?

In reality that Audience is most likely a complete inverse to the votes in the "Audience" score.

It would be interesting to get a true audience poll, but that isn't what these scores represent today.

But even that would be somewhat self selecting. IOW a real poll of actual CW viewers, would likely score the show higher, than the general public would, because it's playing to the target demo.

This is where actual critic reviews can be handy. They are less about self selection, since they often have to watch stuff because it's their job, not because they are fanboys/haters with a grudge, some may have baggage of their own one way or another, but with a decent sampling of critics the bias should average away.
The problem with "actual critic reviews" is that they have become the polar opposite version of who you refer to as "toxic white males" (which speaks volumes...), and instead of being unbiased critical reviews, they are soyboy sjw jerkfests that give high marks to poorly written crap, solely because of /insert gender, social cause pandering/ the reviewed media provides.

Rotten Tomatoes and Metecritic are both ridiculously biased review sites. And yes angry anonymous fans ("angry white males" and soyboys alike) spam bad and good reviews on both of those sites.

Incidentally I would guess that your IMDb metric is correct, Batwomen having a high male average view count is not far fetched, given that regardless of what angry white females scream about, comic books and comic book character fans are still primarily males, whether the creators are pushing a "girl power" version or not, and is probably why it gets bad reviews. What male troll would use thier correct gender anyways? Trolls being trolls, it would be just as likely that angry white females are spamming bad reviews so they can vomit all over pinstagram the next day about how the angry white man is attacking thier poor show.

That is unfortunately the current nature of things.

Netflix's The Witcher is still a good live action version of the books.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,067
The problem with "actual critic reviews" is that they have become the polar opposite version of who you refer to as "toxic white males" (which speaks volumes...), and instead of being unbiased critical reviews, they are soyboy sjw jerkfests that give high marks to poorly written crap, solely because of /insert gender, social cause pandering/ the reviewed media provides..
The critic reviews are NOT the thing that changed. They are pretty much reviewing things the way the always have. The toxic sewer dump if the anonymous internet is the new thing.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,060
The critic reviews are NOT the thing that changed. They are pretty much reviewing things the way the always have. The toxic sewer dump if the anonymous internet is the new thing.
Critic reviews started going the complete opposite direction of your average viewer thirty years or so ago. They haven't had any real relation to the average viewer in more than a decade. Critic reviews also don't review the movie or show anymore. They "review" what they want to see out of something or what they thought something should be. Most of the time their criteria has more to do with whatever policy, politics or "value" they believe in over what the movie or show is actually about. None of it has to do with actual entertainment values of the movie or show.

There have always been reviewers who reviewed based on some sort of "perfect" technical scale such as production values, lightning, the filter used, etc. but what we have now is far beyond that.

Old time reviewers such as Siskel and Ebert were a very different story from what we have now. While I didn't particularly agree with either of their opinions they would explain their opinions. They would state what they did and did not like about a movie; whether it was the plot, how good or bad the director was, how the dialogue was good or bad and so on. Professional critics don't do that anymore. It's all about how a movie or show fits into their own personal or political beliefs or whatever "message" is being pushed at the time.

Professional critics have been worthless for a long time because they have absolutely nothing in common with the average viewer. That's the very reason you almost always see professional critic scores and "audience" scores almost polar opposites. Critics are so divorced from reality and refuse to realize people watch shows and movies for entertainment rather than specific, popular political messages.

Thus, the reason you see a lot of people liking The Witcher while critics hate it. The Witcher is quite entertaining for most people but doesn't push beliefs and messages critics want.
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,273
I think in terms of "success" netflix bases it off how many people watch something. Take that awful movie "bright" that had Will Smith in it. It was plain awful, but had 10s of millions of views, so netflix considered it a success. Netflix is a mixed bag when it comes to original content. That CGI dragon was inexcusable in these times. Maybe 10-15 years ago it would be okay, but its almost as if they ran out of budget and asked a college kid to do something over the weekend
 

Master_Pain

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
4,327
The "Audience" score these days isn't based on some real slice of casual viewers. Instead, it's often driven by toxic young white guys(or older ones that never grew up), that are pissed off that culture is changing to be more inclusive, and spend a disproportionate amount of their lives complaining about it, on the internet.
Oh hey, a shill, where did you come from?
 
Top