I get those types of people as well and sympathize....I was mainly trying to say it is good there is SOMETHING for those who want to watch such and not have to skip it entirely due to such content

Tbf I think OP was, by that last line of his...everyone else, not so much or at all.

This. Just in in 2019, in the USA alone, more than 500 new series premiered. It is not that like there are no options to choose from.

If you do not like it, why watching it. It is literally impossible to watch all the tv and movies already available on any platform.

You have a right to your 'feelings' and opinions, but the makers of the series disagree with you. What more is there to say?

I don't recall seeing that quote, but it's nice to know that they were listening.

Reminds me of the preacher telling his congregation: I happened to tune in a station on T.V. and it was the most discusting thing ever. "I want you to know that it went on for at least 30 minutes!

alright, I'll give you that one.

Well, TBF The Witcher has always been "mature" entertainment -- across all mediums. And if I'm remembering correctly, there was a warning on the Netlix splash page for the show prior to hitting "play."

Sex scenes generally exist to cause arousal, confusion, disgust, or renewal intimacy. They are a legitimate art form. But they are also nowhere near as inert as a crayon drawing.

[Sarcasm]
Disusing your feelings, even if you can't clearly articulate them, is probably something we should bully someone about. Because, you know, the internet can't possibly listen to someone or show compassion without a picture of a puppy.[/sarcasm]

The OP is complaining for his or her own reasons. But I don't think they are saying you can't go and watch what you want to watch. They are complaining because a story or characters they care about are mixed with an art form or (more likely, from the context), the presentation of an art form that degrades their experience.

Consider this: Jar-Jar Binks. People complained about his presentation but nowhere did I see anybody saying something like this:

"Oh you Americans! You just can't stand CGI. You're just a bunch of puppetry purists. You know there's violence in film. You people just love to show your children the most violent shows but an ounce of CGI comes in the screen and you bitch and moan about it all over the Internet. Get a life. CGI is a valid art form and we're not going to take it away to please you purists. Get a life. Besides, it's your problem that the character annoys you. Just don't watch the movie."

But of course, they're invested in the characters. They want to see the show. And they don't despise all CGI, they just don't want it overdone and they want to publicly state it.

The fact that nobody goes bonkers and makes all of the logical fallacies in an attempt to poorly defend JarJar betrays your conscience. You know, as does everyone else in this thread, that there is a very significant difference between JarJar and sex on the screen. Sex is a very powerful human experience that makes tons of people feel many different things.

And complaining about it adds to a collective conscience about it, even if it is a shallow form of communication.

Customers complained about the sex cards and CDPR admitted that it was immature and made sex more meaningful in 2 and 3. Others complained about films and companies like VidAngel are formed (which, incidentally, also has a JarJar filter).

Sometimes people can't articulate much more than a complaint because they get stuck in that peculiar place of loving and hating something. They just hate a part and love another. It seems odd to me that a group of regulars here would gang up and attack him instead of say "I rather enjoyed the sex," or "it didn't seem to fit with some of the scenes, but overall, it was fine." Instead, it was more of a critique on anyone's ability to critique sex scenes, which treats it less as an art form.

I do understand some saw an attack from OP using the word smut. But given the definition: "obscene or lascivious talk, writing, or pictures." The OP was just trying to express themselves.

Nonetheless, my call is a call for civility. Every time someone complains about sex, it's always an attack. Showing understanding and reflecting on the critique would be more valuable conversation. "what didn't you like?" Might come back with"it didn't add emotional impact. It felt inserted like it didn't belong." "Oh, it belonged. It was trying to show you how the Witcher perceives women." Or something like that (which many posters did engage in, but some just attacked the poster and not their ideas with "oh you Americans" (it's an American made show, which is a weird attack) and"what a Puritan" (these aren't direct quotes).

I think what needs said has been said. If a call for civility and understanding is outside if your comfort zone, that's your prerogative. I'm all done with the topic. I can't imagine there are too many other arguments to be made about it.

Atm I saw the first three chapters and without knowing the entire universe of The Witcher (i didn´t read the books and have pending the games sorry, I am more lost than a partridge, let´s see if it starts convergencenging in a point of the story or there are multiple plot lines simultaniously.

I certainly agree with any call for civility and don't think anyone should be "attacked" for not enjoying certain kinds of entertainment...

... but...

... I think what happened here was that the OP started watching the Netflix series with little understanding of the source material. When he came upon scenes of overt sexuality and sexual content, he was surprised and disgusted. That's fine...

... but...

... it does show that a viewer might want to take displayed mature ratings into account prior to hitting "play"...

... and...

... one might want to become basically familiar with a property prior to watching a movie or show. based on that property.

A couple of minutes online could have shown the OP that The Witcher is not Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit.

The three branches of the story have their own timeline. Eventually you will see them converging. There are hints: the first victory of the queen of Cintra. The story of the 60 princesses born during the eclipse. The nicknames that Geralt receives. For Geralt's branch, years (even many years) may happen between the events depicted in each episode. He ages very slowly.

Additional hints: Geralt was not born the way he is (that he tells in the show, eventually). His hair became white, his eyes became more capable in the darkness, at the cost of an uncanny appereance. His is an old trade, shun by most people, who treat those in his office as pariahs, even more than to executioners. Think of a cross between an executioner, and a roving gipsy tinman, with a heavy touch of Frankenstein's creature. He meets undeserved rejection, he hoped to become a hero many years ago, when he was still a young man. Now he just hopes to get a well-deserved payment in the next village and then move on.

Both the stories and the show reflect on prejudice, xenophobia, ecology, the natural world threatened by human actions, friendship, the difficulties of maintaining a successful love relationship, the lies and mistakes of those in power, learning from one's own mistakes and a few other things. Geralt appears as much of an antihero, while he really proves to be a hero at heart, as well as a sensitive, generous person (but few people would not scorn at the idea). Think Rick in Casablanca. Think a beaten Don Quixote in his last days.

The general theme of the saga might well be this: a man in his middle years endures the harsness of life while he finds meaning in clinging to rare basic decency and, eventually, in love in all its forms; all while he sees how the world he comes from vanishes gradually.

Concerning the books, Sapkowski has not had much luck with his translators. However, even if you cannot read Polish, the stories are good, just take into account that you are reading through the lens of a questionable translation, that might introduce nuances that were not in the original. He is widely revered in Poland. (Digression: think of what happens with the translations of Njal's Saga: some people prefer Magnusson's, that introduces many changes to make it more similar to modern English, while others prefer Robert Cook's, that stays closer to the original and preserves more of the original taste. They read like two different books, causing different effects in readers.)

Wow, thanks a lot Carradice for this sinopsis and introduction to the world of The Witcher. Indeed, i didn´t know too much about this if not had been for the Netflix series. For now even i´ve bought the two first games of the saga, who knows? , perhaps in the future i´ll buy the books as well. Thanks!

You are welcome. Happy watching, play and reading!

I have never read any of The Witcher books, only played the original game. I loved it so much that I have finished it multiple times and ignored episodes two and three. I probably deserve a punishment for that, but before I engage self-flagellation, here is what I think about the eight episodes that I have seen so far:

The Witcher is a little bit of a poser but it is the nature of the beast I guess. I got over that aspect because I think Henry Cavill is a perfect fit for the role, physically speaking.

Ciri is bland.

Yennefer is complex character with an interesting background. Very powerful.

Triss is a disappointment. The way she almost got killed in episode eight baffles me.

Tissaia is a major disappointment. She is supposedly one of the most (if not the most) powerful mage in existence (am I wrong on that?) and yet she shows nothing to back it up. Again, in the eighth episode, she doesn't do a damn thing and she even fell, like a first year apprentice, for a ridiculous magic trick and almost died from it. I really hope she will have her moment of glory before the end of the series.

Overall not the greatest show in the world but I'm enjoying it, so far. I like the world, the pace is good in my opinion and the stories are entertaining.