Don’t believe the Rotten Tomatoes score, folks. That’s the lesson, once more, that we’re learning today. We are destined to relearn it over and once again.
I’m speaking of the “Fresh” but not very fresh score The Witcher is currently rocking, and that’s not including the very worst review about the show I’ve read. Once that one is in there—if it’s added—the score will go down though, to be fair, my very positive review of the show will balance that out.
There are variety of negative reviews which we’ll affect during a moment, but i would like to spotlight one especially that's truly beyond the pale.
The review is from Entertainment Weekly, which describes the show as “nakedly terrible” within the headline. It is, we could say, a “nakedly terrible” and deeply unprofessional review. There are many truly awful bits, but i will be able to pull from the 2 most galling. the primary is from critic Kristen Baldwin, who is during a review/conversation with fellow critic Darren Franich. She writes:
“In the interest of professional obligation, Darren, I did sit through the second episode, which was notable for a couple of reasons. (Spoiler: None of these reasons include, “Because it had been good.”) Henry Cavill gets far less screen time within the second hour — and he has got to share his few scenes with a really, very annoying traveling bard (I would name the actor who plays him, but I’m fairly certain the writers didn’t even bother to call the character?).”
I bolded the foremost important line. Baldwin only watched two of the five provided screeners before assigning The Witcher an “F” and calling it terrible. But the remainder of the passage is worth remarking on also. She is annoyed by the annoying bard, but didn’t take the four seconds it requires to travel to IMDB to seem up his name, which is Jaskier. An actor named Joey Batey plays the part. But hey, why bother researching character names when you’ve already decided the show is bad before even bothering to observe it?
Why even write a review?
The second passage is from Franich, who writes:
“Because life’s too short for Netflix drama running times, I skipped ahead to the fifth episode” then there’s spoilers which I won’t quote, because life’s too short to possess good TV ruined by spoilers from critics who could care less.
So let’s soak this beat for a flash, shall we?
Two critics at one among the most important entertainment outlets within the world were so flippant about The Witcher that they didn’t even bother watching the five screeners provided by Netflix before giving it a failing grade while mocking its fans, cast and crew.
That’s . . . bad, right? I’m not alone in thinking that that’s bad?
“Alas, my destiny is to never watch this borefest ever again,” concludes Franich. Considering he didn’t really watch it to start with, I’m unsure “alas” really applies.
It’s one thing to possess a differing opinion a few work of art. It’s to be expected. I respect differing opinions, but as long as you’ve done the work required to make one within the first place. Alas, EW didn't.
What frustrates me is that this type of thing gives all critics—and journalists—a bad name—and rightfully so. How can we trust critics if they don’t even watch the show or play the sport or read the book they’re scorching from abreast of high, therein most lurid of fantasy lands, the high pedestal of criticism?
No other review is that this egregious. Many just seem to require to constantly compare it to Game of Thrones. Variety’s review does just this, and its author admits to being a watcher but not a reader of the books (and presumably not a player of the games). That’s fine, actually. This show is supposed for newcomers and old fans, alike. But it does desire an excessive amount of emphasis is being placed on Thrones comparisons instead of accepting that not all fantasy is that the same.
Meanwhile, The Playlist’s Andrew Bundy calls The Witcher “a subset of fantasy that's both derivative and dated” which is, quite frankly, utter nonsense. The Witcher is an enormously original fantasy and in contrast to really anything out there. so as to form such a claim, a critic must simply believe that each one fantasy that isn’t Game Of Thrones or Lord of the Rings is derivative. It’s a deeply silly thing to mention, and it stems from a belief that this is often just a cash grab because “why attempt to write something original for fans that were disappointed with who ended abreast of some throne made from iron once you can devour a rusty blade that’s close to break and put it within the hands of Superman, right?”
I’m most surprised by GameSpot’s very spoiler-filled review, which anchors its largest complaint onto one among the show’s greatest strengths: its narrative structure. I’m baffled by this complaint but I won’t say more for fear of spoilers. Suffice to mention, it’s like complaining that the primary season of Westworld is bad because it’s too confusing.
It’s true that this isn’t a show for everybody. I wrote in my very own review that a lot of people would need to work a touch harder to stay up because there are numerous difficult names of individuals and places and therefore the story is purposefully a touch hard to follow. But having to figure a touch harder to digest your entertainment isn’t a nasty thing. we'd like more of that sort of television program, not less, an equivalent way we'd like exercise for our bodies. A show like this causes you to think. It exercises your mind.
Still, most are entitled to an opinion and a minimum of these other critics presumably watched the show they’re writing about. If they didn’t love it, that’s their own business and that i don’t hope to sway anyone. We all have our own takes.
I think it’s a shame to write down it off as a Thrones knock-off and i feel many of the negative reviews I’ve read seem to misunderstand The Witcher, but that’s how it goes. As a lover of fantasy novels, games, shows and films I’m quite familiar with that kind of thing. It’s the character of the beast.