vikings! on the history channel? what the hell?

[Calibandar]

I'm not going to argue this much more. I find this show pretty good, and its certainly better than a great deal of what is on tv. I find that people so heavily critisize tv for what is not on it, then something comes out that is different and instead of supporting it to at least see if it gets some extra funding or another season, we abandon it if it isnt immediately to our liking. Then we complain there is nothing worth watching.

Good point, we do do this.

[~ZombieWife~]

I'm liking it. I don't get why people are all, "OMG HELLZ NO THIS IS NOT 100% historically ACCURATE and I WILL DIE NOW," but oh well.

I went into this knowing:

1. It's from the creator of the Tudors (which is, as many of you so, SO SUPER accurate historically--not).

2. It's about vikings and stuff.

I'm having fun with it. It's really not rocket science. :D

[rocksniffer]

I'm liking it. I don't get why people are all, "OMG HELLZ NO THIS IS NOT 100% historically ACCURATE and I WILL DIE NOW," but oh well.

I went into this knowing:

1. It's from the creator of the Tudors (which is, as many of you so, SO SUPER accurate historically--not).

2. It's about vikings and stuff.

I'm having fun with it. It's really not rocket science. :D

;)

[Talleyrand]

It always nice to see Kulich playing something remotely viking. I personally loved 13th warrior and he's a good solid viking in this and christ is he huge compared to the others.

Also for those who've seen the 3rd episode:

why did Floki take the crucifix - did he think it was just a necklace knicking kind of situtation

[sToNED_CAT]

I'm liking it. I don't get why people are all, "OMG HELLZ NO THIS IS NOT 100% historically ACCURATE and I WILL DIE NOW," but oh well.

Well it's on history channel... And historical accuracy isn't that big problem, inconsistent writing and weak characters are worse. First part was best in this regard.

I'm not saying it's that bad (and I'll certainly continue watching it), but it has much greater potential. Acting is good, I like scenery and music, but the writing MUST improve.

And Talleyrand and others who already saw 3rd episode : USE SPOILER TAG. Most people are 1 week behind us.

[wolverine]

I think it is decent so far (through 2 episodes). It is nothing phenomenal but it will keep me watching, at least for now. I like many of the characters, but would agree that some of the writing is weak.

I guess, since it is on the history channel, I would like to know a little more of the history. The website on history.com doesn't really give you much. Like, where is this Viking village at? Maybe I am just missing some of this stuff.

[I do not sew]

I think it is decent so far (through 2 episodes). It is nothing phenomenal but it will keep me watching, at least for now. I like many of the characters, but would agree that some of the writing is weak.

I guess, since it is on the history channel, I would like to know a little more of the history. The website on history.com doesn't really give you much. Like, where is this Viking village at? Maybe I am just missing some of this stuff.

This is asking a lot.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I like the show. For one thing, i think it does pre modern morality better than asoiaf and got. But picking nits is fun.

[Howdyphillip]

It always nice to see Kulich playing something remotely viking. I personally loved 13th warrior and he's a good solid viking in this and christ is he huge compared to the others.

Also for those who've seen the 3rd episode: why did Floki take the crucifix - did he think it was just a necklace knicking kind of situtation

Please put 3rd episode spoilers in spoiler brackets. It hasn't been released for broadcast yet.

I would like to propose that we don't talk about any episodes that we have watched online in advance. There are a lot of people who either can't or don't want to do this. The broadcast has shown 2 episodes so far.

[MercenaryChef]

I like to imagine a viking job interview where different items are shown and the prospective viking must catolog them under burn, eat, drink, fuck, steal or kill.

some can be put in multiple categories. reaving took more than a beard and an axe. you had to ne quick of the mind too.

[wolverine]

I like to imagine a viking job interview where different items are shown and the prospective viking must catolog them under burn, eat, drink, fuck, steal or kill.

some can be put in multiple categories. reaving took more than a beard and an axe. you had to ne quick of the mind too.

Classify:

Moldy Cheese

Goat

Old Hag

Bible

[Zorral]

I've seen the first three episodes.

Such nice eye liner, which natch only guys get to wear, except for Earl the Bad's wife Siggy -- but this telegraphs she's a Bad too. Who knew Vikings had such sophisticated hair stylists, which, natch again, are for men only. The high fades and tails and half shaved heads are so common one cannot but help wonder then, why Twelve-Year-Old-Viking-To-Be sneers at the monk's tonsure. He himself is half shaved. Sheesh.

Also all that LA Californication wife sharing -- who knew Vikings were so sexually progressive? Just as I'd never had a clue that the people in the north, at the end of the 8th century, had no idea of lands to the west, meaning, at this moment, England. But then I'd also thought it was rather dangerous to be so high-handed with abduction of another man's thralls or just killing somebody because you felt like it.

The scenery is gorgeous. But surely Ireland, where it is supposedly shot, doesn't have fjords?

[Eyron]

I like this so far. I don't get the idea of naming the main character after Ragnar Lodbrok though. Maybe it will make sense later but it's not really closely related to the stories and myths of him so far, except that his first wife was supposedly a shieldmaiden (Hlaðgerðr, who was from Norway - then part of Denmark) and one of his sons was named Björn, but he was supposedly not Hlaðgerðr's son.

In the Ragnar saga he did live in Norway for a long time, and married princess Aslaug (perhaps also a shieldmaiden), but the stories vary wildly like all norse mythology and sagas.

Zorral, this is not about historical times. I don't think the show is trying to depict actual history since well it's mythology more than anything. The characters are descendants of the gods in the stories they build upon here. If the Norse priests or men/women wore soot makeup I would not be surprised, they did worse things for vanity, like filed teeth. Makeup is not unheard of in tribes around the north of Europe nor other parts of the world. But according to traveller Ibrâhîm ibn Ya`qûb (al-Tartushi) both men and women used eye makeup in the north (specifically the Danish town Hedeby, now on the border to Germany). Hair has always been important and marked status in society and relations so I'm not sure what you are getting at there...

Kids with mohawks today would surely sneer at someone with a shaven tonsure if they never saw it before?

Thumbs up for Gustaf Skarsgård! He's great.

Edited for spoiler, I guess it is a minor one, I haven't seen the 3rd episode myself.

[Zorral]

Vikings isn't historically accurate, despite being a fiction drama series on the History Channel? Who knew ....

[Eyron]

Vikings isn't historically accurate, despite being a fiction drama series on the History Channel? Who knew ....

It's a saga (which is historical in all it's versions), the saga of Ragnar Lodbrok, who is not a historical figure but a mythological one. I am sure a lot of the details are historically accurate to please the history interested but since there is not a set time scope for when in history this is supposed to be I guess they can wing it pretty much.

"Vikings" were not one people, and not in the exact same culture or state of developement, nor a set time, so they have room to wiggle. Calling the series Vikings in the first place is somewhat misleading I think.

Fun fact: Viking only means a person who lives at the coast, in a "vik" (bay).

[wolverine]

It's a saga (which is historical in all it's versions), the saga of Ragnar Lodbrok, who is not a historical figure but a mythological one. I am sure a lot of the details are historically accurate to please the history interested but since there is not a set time scope for when in history this is supposed to be I guess they can wing it pretty much.

"Vikings" were not one people, and not in the exact same culture or state of developement, nor a set time, so they have room to wiggle. Calling the series Vikings in the first place is somewhat misleading I think.

Fun fact: Viking only means a person who lives at the coast, in a "vik" (bay).

Umm...one of the opening scenes has text stating "Eastern Baltic, 793 A.D."

Viking may have only meant that at one point, but to almost everyone, it takes on some meaning other than coastal dweller.

Since so little is known of the people's depicted on the show, particularly that early on, I wonder how the naysayers can point out what is accurate and inaccurate with such certainty. Surely there are things most people can agree on as actually being known, but there is a lot that is unknown.

[wolverine]

Who knew Vikings had such sophisticated hair stylists, which, natch again, are for men only.

The hair stuck out to me as well. Your comment seems to be sarcastic, but with a quick internet search the show appears to be accurate for as far as what is known. They can't put anything that isn't true on the internet ;) .

[WTFSalami]

First episode was good.

Second episode was really bad.

Third episode snapped me back into the reality that this show is on the History Channel and it basically equates to nothing other than one of their run-of-the-mill re-enacted poorly-done period piece specials.

Thank you for 3 hours, History.

[Eyron]

Umm...one of the opening scenes has text stating "Eastern Baltic, 793 A.D."

Viking may have only meant that at one point, but to almost everyone, it takes on some meaning other than coastal dweller.

Since so little is known of the people's depicted on the show, particularly that early on, I wonder how the naysayers can point out what is accurate and inaccurate with such certainty. Surely there are things most people can agree on as actually being known, but there is a lot that is unknown.

Oh I missed that they put a date on it :blushing:

As you say though, so very little is known of this time in this region, so that does not help a lot. The "history" of the vikings was not written at the time, and the facts of things are what archaeologists have found and what we read on rune stones. Which is not much at all.

What I meant about the term 'viking' is that is what the word means, not what people have put into it later on. The word is in use in some places in the North. Icelandic Reykjavíkingar still call themselves that for example. But afaik the origin of the word is the activity of going seafaring = "fara i víking" and did not refer to a person or people at all.

[Talleyrand]

The "go viking" originality meant just meant to go off sailing - be it trading, raiding but the original masculine form name for someone who went of to do it was a Vikingr. Small change but in my ind sounds far more badass