The Witcher Season 4 | Review Thread

Draugoth

Gold Member
qmdbXoqhiUxiN9KGauKZC-1920-80.jpg.webp

GamesRadar+ - 4/5

By ditching the aspects that didn't work and keeping what did, The Witcher Season 4 is a better, more focused, and most importantly, more fun season of the show, with some great action, big stakes, and an Empire Strikes Back-style setup for Season 5. Bring it on.

TechRadar - 3/5

The Witcher season 4 is a real mixed bag, starting off weak before getting stronger towards the final few episodes. Liam Hemsworth isn't the star here either, but the payoff for season 5 should be explosive.

IGN - 7/10

Even with the Cavill/Hemsworth shake-up, The Witcher sticks to its guns (er, swords) and delivers a decent season of magic and mayhem.

The Guardian 2/5

The replacement that Netflix has chosen for lead actor Henry Cavill is utterly lacking in his predecessor's likability. The ex-Neighbours actor is a scowling lunk who brings a wildly uneven vibe to this fantasy drama



The Witcher is a maverick, a lone wolf, a loose cannon who won't play by the rules. "He knows no fear," gasps an underling as the Witcher looks at a horse and frowns, fearlessly. But the Witcher is preoccupied. The winds of change howl around his thigh boots and perturb the weave of his wig. "Your silence is especially loud today, Witcher," observes sidekick Milva (Meng'er Zhang), as the Witcher – who, for the purposes of drama/HMRC, is also known as Geralt of Rivia – frowns at another horse. But the Witcher/Geralt doesn't want to talk about why he doesn't want to talk. Not because the most recent instalment of the beloved Netflix series with which he shares a name saw his family rent asunder by the forces of darkness (although, to be fair, this probably hasn't helped). But because the wandering monster-hunter has awoken in season four of The Witcher to find he is no longer being played by Henry Cavill, upon whose mountainous shoulders rested the first three seasons of this unapologetically preposterous fantasy-drama. Instead, Geralt is now Liam "Younger Brother of Chris" Hemsworth, who used to be in Neighbours. In a very real sense: strewth.

The metamorphosis clearly weighs heavily on Geralt, who spends the first episode of the new series flaring his nostrils and peering anxiously into the middle distance, as if concerned Harold Bishop might suddenly appear from behind a shrub and club him with a mace. The maverick's malaise is understandable: Cavill's are big thigh boots to fill, the actor's granite-jawed charisma providing an often deeply confusing show with its near-monosyllabic anchor. But now, with Cavill off to brood in pastures new, the final two series of The Witcher (the oversized rubber axe is poised to fall at the end of season five) must look to Hemsworth's flaring nostrils for their protagonism. How fares the extraordinarily violent fantasy-drama in the wake of such a seismic regeneration, my liege? Let us clamber aboard a faux-medieval horse and head into the rugged wilds of season four to search for clues.


The last time we saw Geralt, he was trudging off to search for his adopted daughter and witcher-in-training, Ciri (Freya Allan), who had been rescued from her nomadic kidnappers by hey-nonnying brigands the Rats. Meanwhile, Yennefer (Anya Chalotra), Geralt's sorceress squeeze, had launched her own search for Ciri, largely via a portal system called, with devastating perspicacity, The Portal System.
 
Unless this season is LOADED with FEMALE nudity, I'm skipping it. The silly melodrama aspects are the worst parts of the show and I don't want them tripling down on them.
 
Unless this season is LOADED with FEMALE nudity, I'm skipping it. The silly melodrama aspects are the worst parts of the show and I don't want them tripling down on them.
careful with what You wish, the said female might not interesting and add more salt to the wound...
 
careful with what You wish, the said female might not interesting and add more salt to the wound...
Eh, I don't care. Just stop with the flapping wang trend and I'll accept droopy old lady tits :P

Sweet hot girl nudity is just a marker that the show is (likely) writing to their ACTUAL audience, men. Not sure if Liam has the female fan base Cavill had (surely not?) but Netflix was smoking crack when they somehow thought chicks were tuning in to hear Ciri and Yennifer scheme and pontificate instead of seeing Henry shirtless frolicking with a nude nymph.

I anticipate a YUGE viewer drop this season.
 
Who cares. Its a subscription system. As long as people dont cancel their sub's they can make these shows forever. You watching something or not has zero impact.
Not anymore. With these types of shows costing in the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS, not even netflix can just eat those costs if no one is watching.

Was the whole show dumped, or is it a weekly drip? Seems like some reviewers have seen the entire thing.
 
I'd rather talk about the live action One Piece. The 2nd season looks like it's going to be great. :)
Any One Piece games worth checking out on PC? The one I played on the Wii-u was not very good.
 
Not anymore. With these types of shows costing in the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS, not even netflix can just eat those costs if no one is watching.
I dont understand this...where is the difference when you pay yr sub anyway? It doesnt matter if you watch something. All that matters...is you paying yr sub.
 
Was browsing Netflix and saw the new season listed and it shows a photo of all kinds of characters, well solely females and that's it. No sign of Geralt. It's quite clear Liam isn't the star, lol.

The very short clip was enough for me to not bother with it.
 
Last edited:
I dont understand this...where is the difference when you pay yr sub anyway? It doesnt matter if you watch something. All that matters...is you paying yr sub.

It's about ratings. If no one watches the show or it's a critical bomb it makes no sense pumping in millions of dollars into the show. Netflix has cancelled shows for far less than the Witchers middling viewership and critical reception.
 
I dont understand this...where is the difference when you pay yr sub anyway? It doesnt matter if you watch something. All that matters...is you paying yr sub.
The difference is a streamer only makes so much, so they gotta portion out their dev costs. A very expensive show that no one is watching is LOST money that could have been better spent on several lower cost projects that MIGHT hit big and thus increase subscribers or reduce sub loss.

Netflix subs have risen most years, but the % increase seems to be levelling off, and at 250mill subs I'm not sure how much more growth they can even have. Plus they are likely at the top of sub cost (my netflix bill is $36/mo or something like that).

tWKZtrsRlp5k2rvK.jpg


so rather than SPEND SPEND SPEND to hit any and all audience to GROW GROW GROW, I think Netflix in particular has to transform to a sub retention versus new sub model, and that means making the shows viewers actually WATCH and keeping costs as low as possible. That 500 million spend for Stranger Things S5 isn't to attract new subs, it's to keep the ones they have, IMHO and they have precious few other shows at that level. Disney is feeling the hit with their super expensive, but relatively low viewer Marvel and Star Wars shows as you can see their sub base is fluctuating.

X2CjJFQr9K25zp7e.jpg


so Netflix is, so far, out of this pit but wouldn't surprise me to see them at a "Gain/loss" equilibrium in a year or two.

I think the heyday of massive TV show budgets is largely over as the sub model just isn't generating the money necessary to support it, especially across all the different services.
 
It's about ratings. If no one watches the show or it's a critical bomb it makes no sense pumping in millions of dollars into the show. Netflix has cancelled shows for far less than the Witchers middling viewership and critical reception.
Yeah, thats the problem....it would make no sense....but they can do it anyway, because it doesnt matter financially (as long as you keep paying them).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom