When Should Franchises End?

At what point do film and TV franchises stop being worthwhile?

Lest someone use the title to suggest I’m a snob, let me be clear. I love franchises. I love Star Wars and Trek, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, Doctor Who and many, many more. I’ve been watching franchises my whole life as most people have, and I resist the idea that these films/tv lack artistry. I’m not one to suggest that nothing in the MCU is art and then insist you go watch Eraserhead instead. Not that I hate more niche or arty stuff either. My love is broad and there is room to enjoy a wide variety of art without devaluing any of it. What I want to discuss now isn’t that franchises shouldn’t exist at all. Often a particular setting is really fun and we want to see more stories in it. Many writers come up with incredibly enjoyable universes full of great lore and ideas, and it would be a shame to only have one story set in them. Shared universes are really cool and can reward fan engagement.

While I don’t love everything in the MCU I love the fact that there is so much going on in different corners of its universe. Star Wars is such a genre bender that exploring different aspects of it can be really fun. Space westerns for the Mandalorian fans, space fantasy for the jedi fans. But fatigue can often set in. A good example is Stranger Things. While the show has had many quality moments past season one, a lot of people watching will admit that the stakes of the show have lessened greatly, partly since none of the main cast have died in four seasons. The threat seems to diminish with each new season and I personally am getting tired of the formula where each series starts with the characters all separated and they remain so until the big finale. No season has topped the first in terms of stakes or quality of writing.

Imagine if it had ended after the first. It would be remembered like Firefly as a perfect season of television. The continuation of the story has felt less like a creative choice and more as a response to the immense popularity of the show. Is it a problem to continue making something really popular? I wouldn’t say so, but only if the vision for the story is strong going forward.

One of the best things about Breaking Bad is that they decided to end it at season five. Vince Gilligan and the other writers had a general idea about where to end things and they stuck to it. Breaking Bad feels like such a complete story and I doubt many would argue that it should have kept going any longer. It rode its popularity while the writers had strong ideas, they kept going to a natural end and then moved on. While they made a spin-off, they did so based on a character that had enough behind him to create an arguably even better follow-up. And they didn’t sacrifice the story to prolong the show. They did six seasons, building to a great conclusion and then they finished it. People look back fondly on both shows because the writers knew when to end things.

Conversely, even dedicated fans will look back on shows like Supernatural with a mixed attitude. While there are many seasons that hold up, the show just kept going. The show kept going so long that every previous story arc ended up feeling small and invalidated as the stakes swelled to ridiculous heights. The main characters both died and went to several different forms of hell multiple times and then came back. At that point, things stop mattering to the audience. Who cares what the Winchester brothers will face next, when they can literally come back from the dead? The show went through many showrunners and writers, purely because it was so popular that the studio wouldn’t let it end. And when it finally ran out of steam, the finale left pretty much everyone cold. I’m sure there are people out there who found it satisfying, but many were angry at how the show treated characters like Castiel. There are definitely many earlier season finales which would’ve been a much more natural and enjoyable stopping point. The legacy of Supernatural is now incredibly spotty and it can be argued that the show long outstayed its welcome.

I love much of Star Wars, and while writers feel they have something to say, or a good story to tell using that universe, I’ll be happy to watch it. But let’s not forget that Disney resurrected Star Wars. George Lucas told a story. He took six films to do so, and then felt that it was finished. He might have sold the franchise, but he only felt the need to make six films before feeling as though he was done. Disney started making Star Wars stories because they wanted to make money. I love some of the Disney Star Wars content, but it clearly wasn’t a creative choice that brought them to us, and more often than not that shows. The sequel trilogy is inconsistent because there was no vision for them as a trilogy; each film feels as though it was made in a vacuum. The recent TV shows have felt mixed in quality because often it feels like Disney just want to keep Star Wars in the cultural Zeitgeist. I’d rather wait longer for something Star Wars related to come along, if it meant that someone made it because they had a strong idea. And honestly, I wouldn’t weep if Star Wars took a break or even ended. We have a lot of really cool stuff in this franchise, and the original story is told in full. Everything else is just gravy, but if Disney keeps pushing things, they might end up evaporating the audience with oversaturation.

People have a limit. Audiences can start to notice if a franchise keeps releasing instalments purely for the sake of making more money. That’s starting to happen with Star Wars, and it’s very noticeable for projects like Rings of Power. That show is all over the place, because the creators were hired to make the show after the fact, rather than showrunners having an idea and pitching it. Does this mean I think we shouldn’t get more stories set in Middle Earth? No but that doesn’t mean we have to have them either. New stories and new settings are just as exciting, and if studios don’t get on board with that, then they are doomed to keep selling us zombie franchises until they collapse under their own weight.

Ultimately, I don’t think there is a moment when any franchise has to end forever. But concluding one and moving on to something new is always a smart move. It can be comforting to keep watching something familiar, but sticking with a comfort franchise at the expense of trying anything new can lead to frustration and entitlement. A shared setting can keep going for a long time if there are fresh new ideas, but if there aren’t any it’s better to let go and take a break from Star Wars, to go and make Knives Out.

The Witcher: Season Two

There was such a long wait for the second season of The Witcher that I had rewatched the first one many times over, yet was still a bit hazy on the plot. Thankfully it begins with a recap to help catch us up on the highlights. Covid has screwed a lot of TV productions over. With the limitations on budget and the amount of extra effort shooting during a pandemic requires, not to mention rewrites and reshoots when a cast member is ill, it’s actually a miracle that they managed to produce the show at all. But not only did they achieve this, I believe that they also managed to improve almost every aspect from the first season.

The writing is more coherent, especially the story pacing, now that the action is all taking place in the same timeline. It is a lot easier to follow the plot right away, and there is a stronger focus on a core storyline, with many threads running alongside. Geralt and Ciri’s relationship takes centre stage and gets plenty of time to develop. By the end it was a constantly heart-warming aspect of the show. The dialogue can be slightly clunky at times, and personally the amount of modern swearing in a fantasy show can get a bit jarring, but otherwise there are a huge amount of standout moments. Many of the scenes feel emotionally weighty and seem destined to end up on YouTube compilations very soon. There are some choices for characters which will piss off fans of the games, like what happens to Eskell, but as someone who hasn’t read the books, but played the games I can say that I appreciate the show isn’t trying to be carbon copy of either. That would lead to a worse experience that would leave no-one happy. The books, especially the short stories, make for a strange pace for a TV show, and it’s inevitable that things need to be altered and moved around.

The costuming is much stronger this season. Much like the Wheel of Time, it feels like the showrunners realised that colour existed. Suddenly characters wear reds, purples and greens instead of every shade of black and grey. The wigs are much more convincing and Nilfgaardian armour no longer looks strange and wrinkled, but golden and glorious. On top of this, some of the composition this season is much more varied. The colour grading is less murky than season 1 and it is easier to see what is going on. The location shooting features much more interesting scenery and shots. Kaer Morhen in particular is an excellent set, that evokes the imagery of the games but has enough of its own character not to be a poor copy.

The direction of the show seems greatly improved. There were some great set pieces in the first season, but a lot of the camera work seemed a bit too static. Now the camera seems to move much more organically, especially when following the point of view of monsters. The added light also means that much more of the shots are easy to see, so the camera work is no longer hidden under a darker filter. Even though the story has stayed as dark and dangerous, the show feels much more vibrant and less bleak than before.

The musical score is a bit more mixed. There are some really well scored scenes that lend dramatic weight, but other than the main theme which is still really strong, it feels a little underwhelming at times. There seemed to be less Slavic inspired sounds in the tracks this time. I’m not saying the score was bad by any means but I definitely preferred season 1. However, Jaskier’s new songs were a perfect addition, and I hope they find reasons to have Joey Batey sing every season from now on.

Speaking of the cast, Joey Batey was a highlight as he was last season. He manages to be a compelling character with a lot of empathy and a never-ending source of humour at the same time. Each moment he is on screen he brightens the mood. His singing also provides the show with a lot of personality. Henry Cavill was born to play Geralt. He understands the character intimately and seems to live and breathe the life of a Witcher. The writing also allows him to soften up Geralt quite a bit as he cares for Ciri and reconciles with both Jaskier and Yennefer. He has much more dialogue, and even cracks a smile on occasion. Anya Chalotra continues to be amazing as Yennefer, embodying the perfect mix of vulnerability and abrasive strength. This season gives Freya Allen a much stronger arc for Ciri, and allows us to see her really make the character her own. Freya is a very talented actor and the struggle Ciri goes through this season to deal with her dark side and fear allows for a lot of powerful moments. Allen rises to the occasion. The many additional side characters introduced this season are all strong choices, although some need more scenes to really shine in the future. Kim Bodnia provides an interesting take on the old witcher Vesemir; he seems weary of the deaths of his younger charges and almost as if he is struggling with depression. Overall, the cast is stronger than ever.

My impression finishing this season was that everything felt more confident. The actors felt more confident in their roles, the story choices seemed bolder, the visuals were massively improved. If it continues like this for each season, I’m excited. A show that gets better and better is infinitely preferrable to one that starts out perfect and slowly gets worse (cough, Game of Thrones). The wait for the second season of the Witcher was well worth it, and I’m eager for the next one. Hopefully it’ll be a shorter wait.

Wheel of Time

I love the Wheel of Time book series. I am most of the way through the books written by Robert Jordan and I was stoked to watch the new show on Amazon Prime. It had been just long enough since I read the first book, Eye of the World, that I was unlikely to remember too many details. Thus, I wouldn’t be so annoyed at the necessary changes the showrunners would have to make to massage the plot into a workable eight-episode season. Having now watched the whole series, I can say that on the whole, I was not disappointed.

There are plenty of aspects of the show I would rather have been handled differently, and inevitably flaws that usually crop up in a first season of any tv show, but none of these things were enough to ruin my enjoyment and the parts that I loved more than make up for them. All credit should go to the writers, to the fantastic cast, the ingenious production designers and of course the show creator, Rafe Spall. Together they managed to make a truly visually stunning show with a whole heap of potential for the future.

I mean what I say when I call the show stunning. I have often complained, on this blog and to my long-suffering friends that many TV shows and films these days have a subdued, almost monochromatic colour palette. Visual media seems to be going through its goth phase. Game of Thrones went from red, gold and green to black, black and blacker for its last season. Every character’s costume seemed to be a darker shade, and the lighting followed suit, making it genuinely hard to see what was happening in most scenes. The same is true for countless other detective shows as well as most DC films. It is really refreshing to see a show like Wheel of Time come along with many brightly coloured costumes, vistas full of beautiful and colourful scenery and well-lit sets that we can actually see. I can’t remember squinting at the TV once during the entire runtime. On top of that, the various directors frequently used gorgeous composition and interesting shot angles, making the feel of the show distinctive to any other, and highlighting much of the symbolism that the story contains.

There wasn’t a single actor I felt miscast. Every character felt true to their book counterpart, even if the script often moved around aspects from later books to allow us to grow to like them earlier. A book has the luxury of letting you slowly get to know characters; a TV must leave an impression quicker by necessity. In particular, Rosamund Pike was perfect as Moiraine, bringing a strength of character, and natural power and authority, as well as an undercurrent of vulnerability that makes her relatable. Barney Harris was hilarious and engaging as Mat, bringing all the best aspects of Mat’s character through much better than the first few books did. The fact he did such a good job has made me incredibly sad, as he will not be returning for season 2. I’m sure both he and the showrunners had their reasons, but it is a blow nonetheless. I could go over each actor individually and tell you exactly why they were amazing in their roles, but that would take forever. Suffice to say no-one was poorly cast, and a few stand-outs beside the main cast were Sophie Okonedo as Siuan Sanche and Álvaro Morte as Logain.

The musical score was appropriately epic, and involved a surprising number of modern instruments and styles. This was unusual but fit perfectly, and the opening theme was a brilliant piece. There were distinctive leitmotifs for many characters and groups, and this all contributed to the setting feeling distinct from other fantasy properties. One of the things I was worried about was the show feeling too much like another European medieval fantasy, when the books are so heavily inspired by many eastern cultures. Fortunately, the distinctive costumes, music and the hints to a more futuristic world in the distant past made the Wheel of Time feel very much like its own thing. In particular the costuming did a great job at showcasing each character’s personality in a very striking way, from shepherd Rand’s shearling coat, to Moiraine’s functional travel robes.

I did have a few issues with the way in which the story was paced, especially given the budget the show had. Eight episodes is a very tight space to fit such a long book into. And of course, a first season has to spend its time very wisely. The first three episodes rush along at such a speed that it’s a bit jarring when things slow down in the middle of the season. Two more episodes would have solved a lot of these problems, and made room for a couple more important scenes which had to be cut. It is also very clear that the finale had to be partly reshot thanks to the departure of Barney Harris, which probably stretched time and money quite far. The fact I still enjoyed the finale despite this is a testament to the showrunner’s skill because some of the action scenes looked slightly unfinished. There are also a couple of story choices the writers have made which confused me and make me wonder how they will be resolved in future series. I don’t hate what they have chosen to do necessarily, but I think they could easily turn into bad choices later if they aren’t paid off properly, especially with Perrin’s wife Laila.

However, none of the flaws I’ve mentioned have stopped me from reacted like an excited child each time a fantastic moment from the books is brought to life. Each episode has had several of these moments which remind me of the first time I read the books all over again. Some reviewers have taken to calling the show a poor copy of Game of Thrones, based mostly on Jeff Bezos asking for Wheel of Time to be his version of it. Many of these reviewers seem to forget natural similarities that shows in the same genre usually have. They love the newest grim detective show with no colour palette and a depressing story and will rave about how original it is, whilst dismissing Wheel of Time. I am glad that despite these early reviews the Wheel of Time has been a huge success, and that we are getting a second season. The show has adapted the world and characters of this book series I love better than I could have hoped, and I can’t thank everyone who made it enough. I cannot wait to see what they do next.

Dune is incredible

(Spoilers)

Denis Villeneuve is a fantastic director. I have yet to see a film of his that is not visually stunning and filled with meaning and character. Sicario is an incredible tense thriller with some fantastic acting. Blade Runner 2049 is a worthy sequel that at times outshines the original, certainly in terms of consistency. Dune is no different.

Frank Herbert’s book has had an extremely rocky history in film. So many people have tried to create a live action adaptation and yet few have succeeded. Even the few versions we do have are heavily flawed. David Lynch’s movie is faithful, yet makes some bizarre choices that leaves the final film hard to enjoy. For instance, every character’s inner monologue is spoken out loud, and the film leans heavily into strangely gross imagery. Both issues alienate the viewer. There was also a 90’s mini-series which stayed relatively close to the books but just didn’t have the budget to do the concepts of the book justice, leaving the series feeling amateur and goofy.

With all that behind him, it is a miracle that Villeneuve even managed to get any studio to agree to make Dune, let alone film and edit the entire thing through a pandemic. The story is a sprawling and unwieldy beast that resists being shaped into a film structure. He, Eric Roth and Jon Spaihts all deserve credit for mostly making a well-paced film that is satisfying, even if it definitely feels like the start of a saga. There are of course clunky moments, but nothing that ruins the pace or lessens the story as a whole. Dune is a worthy adaptation and certainly the best one we have gotten so far.

One thing that struck me first of all was the amazing visuals. Denis and his director of photography, Greig Fraser have composed some wonderful shots, full of incredible scale. There is a great blend of close-up intimate moments, and cosmic wide shots that show the frailty of the characters against Arrakis itself. There is great use of a moving camera and interesting angles that all give us a unique view of the characters. Villeneuve excels in particular at letting shots carry on. He allows moments to breathe and so we have time to drink in the scenery or focus on the performance of the actors. As a director he trusts his audience to have patience and be able to pay attention, which is refreshing when compared to many other current filmmakers.

I have also recently begun to pay closer attention to the sound design when I watch films. Blade Runner 2049 had very visceral foley effects for action scenes, and this has carried over to Dune. The action sounds incredible. When the sand worms vibrated the desert I could feel it, partly due to the excellent sound system in my cinema. Quiet moments have clear and crisp sounds for the small noises going on in the background. My only real complaint is the number of main characters mumbling their lines. It doesn’t help when Dune is a plot with a lot of new concepts and characters. Alongside the sound the score is also superbly well put-together by Hans Zimmer as always.

All the cast gave stellar performances. I have no complaints about Timothée Chalamet; he was a solid Paul. The character isn’t the most complex but Chalamet gave him a good amount of vulnerability, which is important for the audience to relate to a “Chosen One”. Most of the Fremen had little screentime but were very good in the few scenes they had. Zendaya clearly had a couple of extra dream sequences dedicated to her in order to pad her screentime. A stand out to me was Oscar Isaac as Duke Leto. He played the Duke has a relatable leader, weighed down by the moral dubious nature of politics. He added nuance to a character that is often left as a rather one-note do-gooder. Considering the character really exists to die and motivate Paul, Isaac made him a very watchable and charismatic person. I was legitimately sad to see him go.

Rebecca Ferguson was appropriately badass as Lady Jessica, while portraying the constant worry and concern for Paul in a very heart-warming way, that brought a new dimension to the character. Stellan Skarsgård was the most terrifying version of Baron Harkonnen onscreen so far. If I had to nit-pick I would say that apart from the cast already mentioned, a lot of the side characters get barely enough screentime to shine in any way. I hope that sequels dedicate a bit more to them. There is also a missing character who I think will hurt the story slightly for being left out, even if Villeneuve means to include them later on.

Story-wise, I think it will be important for viewers to know going in that this is really only a part one. The marketing could have made this clearer, but the title clarifies. As such it does suffer to a small degree with what Harry Potter suffered from; structural issues. The build up is very long and then the action really starts almost an hour in. As a consequence, the obvious climax of the fall of House Atreides feels like a natural stopping point. However the film keeps going for another 45 minutes. While I didn’t mind too much as I was enjoying everything enough to get over it, the point of the story where we finally end up is an odd choice to finish. But the plot is largely faithful. This feels like Dune.

I ultimately loved my experience watching this film, and although there are several problems with the film, they don’t amount to enough to ruin my fun. It feels great to watch a slower paced, more cerebral action Sci-fi. It feels even better knowing the film has made enough money for sequels, which is a first for Villeneuve and for Dune. It is simply the best adaptation we have been given so far and it was a great time. You can’t ask for more.

Winter War now as Paperback

Two months ago I released the sequel to Senlac Hill, Winter War. This short novel was previously only available on kindle, however I have released it in paperback form, so if you were waiting to get a physical copy of the book, now is your chance! I hope you enjoy.

A Symphony of Horror

Taking a look at the Dracula film which isn’t about Dracula…

In the spirit of Halloween, I thought it would be fun to take a look at one of my favourite classic horror films. My first exposure to Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror was at an open day for a local college (for the non-UK readers, I mean the two-year college that comes between regular school and university). I wandered into a film class presentation while taking a look at the campus, and on the projector was a truly chilling image. On a silent screen accompanied only by eerie music, a young man hid in his bed. Through a castle door, a creature glided along a corridor towards the viewer. It was a strange bald man, with long fingers and wide, piercing eyes. Those eyes stared through the screen straight at me, and I was mesmerised. It was such a striking image that even though I didn’t have time to stay and watch the rest, the film stuck with me. I asked the teacher what it was called and eventually tracked it down so that I could watch the entire thing.

Since studying at film school I’ve learnt much more about Nosferatu and the genre it belongs to, but even before that I considered it an amazing piece of early horror. I never expected to find a silent film from the 20’s particularly scary, but it turns out the right imagery can leave an impact without the need for dialogue or sound effects. Nosferatu is a German expressionist film, which means it is part of a genre of early films made in Germany that rely on heavy contrast and shadow to create striking images and fantastical stories. These films usually focus on symbolism and are usually heavily stylised. The style lends itself well to a certain style of horror. While Nosferatu isn’t particularly gory or suspenseful, especially to a modern audience, it does leave a huge impact. Many of the shots are bold, and between the excellent makeup and heavy shadow, as well some interesting locations, each frame seems to stay with me long after I watch it.

The film has an unusual history. The director, F. W. Murnau wanted to shoot an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s book Dracula. However, Stoker’s widow wouldn’t sell him the rights and so he simply altered the plot slightly and renamed all of the characters. As such Count Dracula became Count Orlok, and Johnathon Harker became Thomas Hutter. If you have watched any film versions of Dracula and/or read the book, the similarities are easy to spot. Stoker’s estate still noticed the film and didn’t think the changes were enough, so after a legal battle most of the copies of the film were destroyed. The only reason this film has become such an influence is thanks to a few copies surviving and making their way to the USA in 1929. Personally, I’m very glad that someone saved the film. It might be copyright infringement but it is nonetheless a damn good silent film.

The cinematography is not as surreal as other expressionist films like The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, but the emphasis on shadow and contrast leads to some excellent gothic imagery of castles, empty towns and dark corridors. Murnau seems to want to make the scene around Orlok seem normal and comforting; shots of nature and comfortable houses. This creates greater horror when we are taken to the castle, filled by clocks with skeletons and other strange architecture. The makeup for Count Orlok is brilliant. The strange tufts of hair, the pointed ears and teeth and the heavy eyeshadow all frame a strange face that is downright unsettling to look at for too long. Max Schreck, the actor playing Orlok has amazing eyes that seem to be tailor made for this kind of role. He stares unblinking and often seem to hold other characters spellbound. If you wanted to argue that the film is not a rip off of the book, the character of Orlok is where you could make your case. Unlike the intelligent aristocrat of the book, who looked mostly human with a few strange differences, Orlok is a monster. He looks like some kind of hellish rat who never takes off his clothes. His character is a leering sadist who spreads like a plague to Hutter’s home town to give his curse to his wife. Schreck is fantastic in the role. His expressions seem almost inhuman, twisted in hatred or hunger. If there is one plot hole in the film, it’s the fact that Thomas Hutter doesn’t run the hell away the second he sees the Count for the first time.

“May I take your coat sir?”

The film is hugely influential, having several remakes and reimagining over the years, including one directed by Werner Herzog and a fun meta horror starring Willem Dafoe. It demonstrates how important stylised and gothic imagery would be to many films in the horror genre and in particular, vampire movies. The film created a creeping tone and unnerving atmosphere in a way that no other medium could achieve. Apart from the style and genre, Nosferatu would also have an enduring legacy in vampire fiction. Before this film, vampires could go out in the sunlight without dying. Dracula himself had no issue walking down the street on a sunny afternoon, albeit without his powers. After Nosferatu ended with the Count being destroyed by the light of dawn, most vampire fiction, including future adaptations of Dracula would make sunlight the vampires most potent weakness. I think that tells you just how inspiring this film has been over the years.

This strange silent film is a testament to visual storytelling. It has survived through the years because the imagery it presents is striking and refuses to be forgotten in a hurry. Thanks to a superb performance from a character actor, unnerving makeup, strong emphasis on lighting and an eye for unsettling scenes, Nosferatu is a unique experience to watch. If you’ve had enough of vampire films that lean into the sexy image that has become so prevalent then I have just the film for you. You definitively shouldn’t find Orlok sexy, although I won’t judge if you do (I will). Happy Halloween everyone!

Netflix’s The Witcher

A very promising start…

Since the last review I made was of the Witcher game series, I thought that I would finally cover the Netflix show. I am admittedly very late to review this; however, I was reminded how much I love this series while re-watching with my dad. As a big fantasy nerd, I have been starved of content from films and TV for a long while. Once you get into the fantasy genre, it doesn’t take long to watch all the big films and shows and have nothing left. Sure, there are lots of urban fantasy shows and Sci-fi, but for that doesn’t quite scratch the itch. So, I was stoked when Netflix released the Witcher, as I cannot get enough of swords and magic. Spoilers will be frequent from this point on.

This series tries to do quite a few things, and I would say that despite a lot of mediocre reviews from more snobby people, it manages to do them successfully. It pays light homage to the game series without borrowing ideas, adapts much of the tone and plot of the book series while avoiding aspects that might make it come off too ridiculous, and succeeds in creating its own style and tone separate from the Game of Thrones trend. Of course, people still compare it to that show, because apparently there is only one fantasy show out there, and everything else is copying it.

To start with, the acting across the board is great. Henry Cavill, a fan of the source material, puts a lot into his role and manages to get across Geralt of Rivia’s inner humanity and kindness with as little dialogue as possible. My only real complaint about his characterisation is that he is too mean to his companion Jaskier. Speaking of the Bard, he is a highlight for the entire show. He brings a lot of high energy, several good jokes and a unique take on a character that otherwise could have come off as a complete sleaze. He also has a great singing voice (yes, toss a coin is an amazing song). Anya Chalotra is given much to work with, as Yennefer’s backstory is greatly expanded on and it is very interesting to get such an insight into her character. Chalotra does a smashing job of showing us the emotional journey Yen goes on to form the character we are more familiar from in the books and games. Freya Allen is decent as Ciri, and I have a feeling we are going to see a lot more memorable moments from her as her character develops.

The structure of the series is interesting. Rather than adapting the first full length story of the book series, showrunner Lauren Schmidt Hissrich chose to adapt the collection of short stories set before the start of the books. This was confusing to me at first, but once enough context clues are dropped it becomes obvious that each of the characters are in their own timeline. By halfway through the series we have a firm grasp that only Ciri’s story is set in the present time of the show. While this feels a little strange it gives the characters a chance to go through development that was otherwise only hinted at in the books, and makes the series less about one character and more of a trio of protagonists. This change in focus gives the audience more opportunity to engage with different characters and take in some of the world building, and I really enjoyed it. Of course, the timelines converge in the final episode and so next season will undoubtably all be set at the same time, but it was a fun way to include the short stories and not burn through all the books too quickly.

The soundtrack for the show is incredibly well put together. While many of the musical themes and leitmotifs are reminiscent of the game series, they don’t simply copy them. Rather they both come from a similar inspiration. There is a good amount of Slavic chanting and singing, as well as a focus on folk style. Many of the songs are in universe creations by Jaskier, that he sings himself. The music has a unique tone which goes a long way to giving the Witcher its own feel, apart from other shows in the genre.

The action choreography is superbly done and very visually entertaining. Geralt fights in a very acrobatic way, using the reflexes his mutations provide. There are a number of excellent set pieces that demonstrate his skill and limitations. The sorcerers all get to do a lot of very creative magic. The effects might be limited in the first season, as is usually the case, but they manage to look mostly pretty cool. The design of the monsters and creatures are really creative, leaning heavily on the horror aspect of the story. Some of the creatures are legitimately terrifying. The striga in particular is a horrible highlight. The only criticism I would raise about the production design is the costuming. While I love the style of most of the outfits, there is a strange trend in fantasy shows to use mostly black and grey clothing, which really saps the series of a lot of colour. I love colours, why do costume designers hate them? This, when added to the colour graded of the footage, which seems to ramp up the contrast and adds a gritty filter to everything, makes a lot of the show murky and dark. It is sometimes hard to see what is going. The only exception seems to be when magic is performed, in which case the colour is heightened. That might be to draw attention the difference between mundane reality and magical illusion, but it leaves the rest of the show feeling drab.

However, that minor quibble aside, this show is a godsend. It provided me with that rare fantasy fix, and as it seems to have been very popular it will hopefully encourage a lot more fantasy TV in the future. The writing is enjoyable, the acting fantastic and the music special. Add all that together and you have a show that has started out very strongly indeed. I can’t wait for season two. Eventually.

New book on Kindle…

I finally wrote a sequel to Senlac Hill, a short story I published on Kindle a while ago. It’s a historical fiction about a young Norman living in the early days of King William’s rule, during the Harrying of the North. It has all the good stuff, battles, drama and swords! Please consider buying it to support this blog and my writing.

The Witcher trilogy

Since there has been a resurgence of interest in the Witcher franchise owing to the recent Netflix series, the time seems ripe to look back over the various adaptations out there. I wasn’t a huge Witcher fan before the Netflix show released; I didn’t play the games when they came out. Perhaps owing to a PC which couldn’t cope with the third release, the series passed me by. However, I am a massive fantasy fan currently starved of TV and movies in the genre, so I watched the series the second it came out and instantly became hooked. I went back and bought all three games on sale and played them all over a month. I can say with certainty that I love this series, and I now plan to get hold of the books and read them as well. I thought that I would share my experience with both the games and the TV show, starting with the games as they came out first.

The Witcher

The first game came out in 2007 and was published by CD Projekt Red, the studio that produced all three games. I enjoyed parts of this game. That is a very loaded sentence, but what I mean by it is that the game is a mixed bag. It has amazing parts that I loved and really irritating features that drag it down. The story is set after the adventures that happen to Geralt of Rivia in the books. He wakes up in Kaer Morhen with amnesia and becomes involved in tracking down strangers who attack the fortress and steal Witcher mutagens. The mutagens are potions that are used to create Witchers or enhance their mutations. The story of the game is solid and has a few subtle twists and turns that aren’t confirmed but are heavily implied. Many of the characters are interesting and well fleshed out and the game does a lot to introduce us to this world in a natural way. However, the story is very long, and not because it is paced that way. If I could have played the main quest at my own speed it would be a lot shorter, but there seems to be a lot of artificial padding.

There are tonnes of side quests, many of which are not nearly as interesting as the main plot, which are pretty much required to get to a high enough level for the next story quest. On top of that getting any gear upgrades necessitates an obscene amount of micromanaging and multiple fetch quests which hinder any enjoyment considerably. The side content and the grind pile-drive the pacing, which made playing feel more like a chore I was going through to get to the rest of the plot. On top of this, the romantic subplots are each followed by a bizarrely graphic collectable card which smacks of sexism. The combat is fun, though bogged down by a lot of clunky features. Depending on the enemy type you need to switch combat style, which is a slow process. However, the need to prepare the right potions and oils and use a different sword makes the process of monster hunting feel more challenging. It lets us feel like a Witcher on the job. Overall, this game has a fun concept and story, and some great features, alongside a bunch of other stuff that make me not over keen to revisit it.

Witcher 2: Assassin of Kings

I felt that this game was a massive improvement over the first. For a start the graphics were much better, with background NPCs not all looking like the same three character models. Geralt now moved more naturally and characters speaking looked like actual humans. The plot feels much more focused and urgent, as Geralt is framed for a murder he didn’t commit. I liked that the game follows on from things set up in the previous instalment, and the combat, potions and magic feel much more streamlined, although not being able to drink potions during a fight is a terrible idea. Again, there are some fantastic characters, sweet romance and a lot of depth. Moral choices are fun because they are so grey and hard to decide. The game developers also wisely dropped the collectable romance cards, which were frankly tacky. The story is separated into chapters, each with side quests, but not so many as to be overwhelming, and much more optional feeling. I could level up without having to do every quest if I wanted to stick the main story.

Geralt feels a much more compelling character in this one as well. In the previous game he came across as very generic. His gravelly voice and cool scar were all that felt memorable, aside from the occasional one liner. In this game he has a more emotive character model and more quests related to his friends which lead to some very interesting conversations. The voice performance from Doug Cockle also seems much better, with a lot of dry wit. Armour and weapon upgrades feel much more attainable and don’t require ten different quests, but are still challenging to get. My only big quibble is the boss fights, which sadly let the game down. While regular combat is fun, boss battles are weighed down by quick time events where we are forced to press certain buttons at the right time, which are a terrible feature for a game where there is actual combat. Not only this, but the bosses often feel as though they might as well have been cut scenes, not allowing for any variation in the way we fight them. The worst is a fight early on against a monster called the Kayran. That fight nearly made me quit the game. However aside from this I had a reasonably good time with Witcher 2.

Witcher 3: Wild Hunt

I freaking love this game. It has to be one of my favourites of all time. I know everyone and their mum already has expressed how great this game is, but I’m saying it anyway. This feels like a perfection of the other two games, almost everything I took issue with in both of them has been addressed in this. Visually this game is stunning, with great character and costume design. The quests are entirely optional, but you’ll do all of them anyway because they all are deep and entertaining. The story is emotional and full of great choices and twists. The pacing works wonderfully, organic enough to allow freedom but with a good sense of urgency. Combat is challenging but flexible, with more than one way to beat bosses and handy shortcuts through oils and bombs. We finally have a horse, so getting to the next quest takes half the time. The game has a decent tutorial so you need not feel dropped in the deep end of the pool.

The story includes two newly introduced characters which I love completely. Ciri is Geralt’s adopted daughter and Yennefer is the love of his life. I wish that these two had been in the previous games. They are interesting, relate to Geralt in different ways and are a pleasure to watch. I hope another game is made with Ciri as the protagonist. There are so many characters to love in this, especially Geralt. The writing is at its finest here, and between the great dialogue Geralt is given and the fantastic performance from Doug Cockle, our protagonist has never felt more relatable. Not to mention the better graphics allowing for him to emote much more facially. Witcher 3 feels like a fantastic third act that takes all of the flaws from the other two games and fixes them, which introducing many brilliant new features. Except Gwent. The game has a weird fixation with getting me to play this card game and I just do not care. The other two had card minigames but I didn’t mention them as they were entirely optional. In this however, there are several quests which require you to play this game and I am not interested in playing a game withing a game. However, this is a small pet peeve which ultimately doesn’t impact my enjoyment. This is the best of the trilogy, and rightly deserves the lavish awards and praise it has received.

So that was the Witcher trilogy of games. The first is okay but has a lot of issues, the second is good but still needs a lot of work, and the third is a magnificent improvement that leaves the series on a high note. I recommend Witcher 2 and 3, and if you need to experience the story of the first, you’d probably be better off watching a playthrough on YouTube.

Discovering Farscape

During this lockdown I’ve taken the opportunity to try out a bunch of TV shows I probably wouldn’t have had time for before. On a whim I saw that the show Farscape was on Prime, and having just seen the show referenced in an episode of Community, I gave it a shot. I am so happy I did. This show is great fun, and ticks all the boxes I like in a good series. Within two days I was halfway through the first season and I had to pace myself to keep from burning through all four seasons, as I want to savour the experience.

Let me preface the rest of the review by saying that this show will not be for everyone. I personally enjoyed it immensely but I can absolutely understand why someone else would find several of the things I liked about it off-putting. Secondly this is a review of the first ten episodes of a show, so I can’t speak to whether or not the show stays good (fingers crossed), but the part of it I’ve seen so far leaves me wanting more.

Farscape is an Australian-American Sci-fi series which ran from the late 90’s to the early 00’s. It stars Ben Browder as an Astronaut who is sent through a wormhole in space to another part of the universe, and must work with a group of escaped prisoner aliens on board a living spaceship. He and the motley crew all share a common goal; to find a way home. I love this premise. I’m a big fan of the concept of being cast adrift from your home, it opens the door to a lot of good emotional moments and grants relatability to the protagonist. The show plays with this really well. The human character, John Crichton is the only human that most of the aliens have ever met, and he has a habit of referencing popular culture to their utter bemusement. This is a trope I love as it is exactly what I would be like in his situation and there is something really interesting about seeing humanity from the point of view of completely different beings, who only have this one man as a frame of reference.

The lead characters are all played by engaging actors. Browder as Crichton is a motormouth who usually tries to talk his way out of a situation, which works well with his characterisation as a scientist and an astronaut. The alien characters are well fleshed out with interesting backstories and strong arcs. Virginia Hey plays a serene priest with a dark past that she is trying to repress. Anthony Simcoe is compelling as a warrior who seems at first to be a Klingon style cliché, but slowly reveals a softer, more sensitive side. Claudia Black is a disgraced peacekeeper, the fascist military in control of that sector. She goes from a strict soldier with emotional walls the size of Jupiter, to a more open and honest friend to the various other characters. None of these people have finished their emotional arcs as of where I am in the series, but they have all changed in small ways in each episode I’ve watched, which is always a good sign in a TV show.

However, the human performers are only one facet of the show. Farscape is produced by the Jim Henson Company meaning that many of the creatures and characters are puppets, and there is something inherently fun about puppet characters. The fact that the actors are interacting with physical things makes it more tangible, even if sometimes the way they move is limited. The voice actors for the puppets are all entertaining and diverse and give the show’s universe a very unique feel. The concepts and style all lend to the show feeling campy, but in my opinion, this works in the series favour. The camp tone and frequent injection of humour keeps things from getting too po-faced. The writers also know their limitations. There are plenty of episodes focusing on the characters and their interactions, which leads to many genuinely touching and emotional moments that perhaps would be left out if the series could focus more on spectacle. After all, many would say that Sci-fi films like The Rise of Skywalker suffer from cramming in too much flashy action that leaves the character development feeling rushed.

On that note, the effects are admittedly a mixed bag. When I started the pilot, I couldn’t help but smile at the very dated CGI used for shots of the spaceships, and the makeup on human performers playing aliens is very theatrical. The CGI didn’t bother me too much because it’s used fairly sparingly. I can forgive a series from 1999 for crappy digital effects. I got the impression the makeup was a deliberate choice, possibly to work better with the puppets, and possibly to contribute to the campy Buck Rogers style. I’d maintain that it gives the show it’s unique aesthetic and so I don’t see it as much of a flaw. However, all the things I’ve discussed ultimately come down to my own tastes, and if you’re thinking that crappy GGI, unrealistic makeup and puppets sounds too silly, then perhaps you won’t be as keen as I am.

For me however, it all comes down to character. Crichton might come off as generic, but since he is representing the entire human race, I think that it works in his favour. Browder does a lot with the quips written for him and has a strong connection to each main character in different ways. He also reacts very well to being so out of his element. Claudia Black was born to play tough strong-willed characters with an inner sensitivity. My only real criticism is that her character overlaps a little too much with Anthony Simcoe’s warrior alien. Virginia Hey probably does the best job of all with her layered portrayal of the priest Zhaan. Even in the admittedly limited number of episodes I’ve watched, I’ve seen how she tries to care for even the most violent of enemies, despite once being a savage fighter with a desire to inflict pain. Her inner conflict is downright alarming at times and it is riveting to watch.

So there you have it. A unique Sci-fi show with strong characterisation, cool puppets and a creative setting. It might be campy and limited in its budget but to me this only adds to the charm and I can’t wait to watch the rest while I’m stuck indoors. Turns out, looking up TV referenced in your other favourite shows is a good thing. Who knew?