Vikings X: Halfway Through the Madness

[GrimTuesday]

4 hours ago, generalzod said:

This may or may not affect how you view the character, but Ivar WAS known to be the most brutal and cruel Viking that ever lived among historians.  The only leap is that Hirst went with the crippled theory as in the sagas it literally says he could not walk and was carried into one battle on his shield. 

there's a fun book called BADASS by Ben Thompson that has a chapter on Ivar that gets into it.  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badass_(book)

Here's an article on how he was viewed as more brutal than other Vikings:

https://englishhistory.net/vikings/ivar-the-boneless/

 

The article has potential historical spoilers so read at your own risk.

 

The Main point of "brutality" was his use of the blood eagle on Aella, but as we have established in the show, that is an accepted method of execution for vikings, albeit one that was uncommon. And considering Aella's role in the events that lead to the Great Heathen Army's attack on England, seems like a situation where that was a reasonable reaction. Considering that there was a viking warrior said to be nicknamed Babylover, not because of some sort of pedophilic leanings but because at one point he refused to throw babys in the air and to try and catch them on his sword/spear, I'd be willing to bet that Ivar wasn't so much worse than everyone else. Also, considering that a lot of what we know about vikings and other pegans is through Christian sources, It's no wonder they come across as so brutal, when in reality, it is highly unlikely they were any worse than any other army of the time.

10 minutes ago, Astromech said:

Hmm, I wasn't even referring to his image as a cruel monster, which is slowly being shed, imo. I appreciated how the writers are portraying Ivar's weaknesses, not just physically crippled. He fears the water. He gets seasick. His impotence. Aslaug's babying of him and everyone's pitying him. In spite of all these "weaknesses", he rises above it all. Perhaps he overcompensates with wickedness, but it isn't a stretch to call him the strongest of Ragnar's sons. And it is the writers' portrayal of Ivar that makes this possible. We see all of his flaws, yet he is conquering them.

Fair enough, I just find the handling of him being rather annoying. I agree that it is good to see him rise above his weaknesses, but I don't think that they are shedding the image of the cruel monster, I think they are just focusing on his ambition for now, which you know will just once again propel him to wickedness. Also I don't really care for the fact that they actually made him a cripple, due to the fact that it's probably unlikely that a cripple such as that would be able to rise to the station that Ivar will one day reach, but I guess some of the sagas support it, so oh well.

[Astromech]

11 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Fair enough, I just find the handling of him being rather annoying. I agree that it is good to see him rise above his weaknesses, but I don't think that they are shedding the image of the cruel monster, I think they are just focusing on his ambition for now, which you know will just once again propel him to wickedness. Also I don't really care for the fact that they actually made him a cripple, due to the fact that it's probably unlikely that a cripple such as that would be able to rise to the station that Ivar will one day reach, but I guess some of the sagas support it, so oh well.

Yeah, that's one problem with having thin source material: Hirst filling in the blanks. Sometimes it works, other times it clearly doesn't. I'm one of those viewers who doesn't mind some of the flaws of the show and tends to overlook them, focusing on the shows strengths.

 

[GallowKnight]

That was pretty good, although I do have lowered expectations after the first half of the season. I like that the pace is quite quick and that they seem to be getting on with stuff a lot faster than during the earlier half. No Wessex or Paris is certainly helping with that. I like seeing Harald and Halfdan again and I hope that they actually do something with them this time around and not just have them appear as glorified extras.

Travis Fimmel is great as per usual and his broken down version of Ragnar is interesting to watch. The scene with Auslag in particular was very good. Quite possibly the best scene ever between those two characters. Ivar is also still very good, and manages to go from sympathetic to horrible and back again very well. The Actor is doing a really good job, especially with the physical parts of the role. The sacrifice scene was very good too. Vikings has always had a good track record with those kind of scenes.

The Lagertha vs Auslag bit feels kinda forced though and Lagertha comes of as fairly petty. Plus that line about what Auslag has done to Kattegat doesn't even make sense, because Kattegat currently seem to be doing better and is more prosperous than ever before.

Torvi is the worst.

[generalzod]

My favorite sequence of the whole episode...Ragnar and Ivar drowning in the perfect storm:

 

 

For those who complain about Hirst's dialogue... his visuals without dialogue are consistently brilliant, imho.

[GrimTuesday]

7 hours ago, generalzod said:

My favorite sequence of the whole episode...Ragnar and Ivar drowning in the perfect storm:

 

 

For those who complain about Hirst's dialogue... his visuals without dialogue are consistently brilliant, imho.

Hirst is neither director nor cinematographer, he has no real hand in the visuals outside of general notes in the scripts.

[generalzod]

So as creator and executive producer he gets zero credit for that Sequence?  He doesn't speak and confer with the directors as to how they plan to shoot the scenes... He doesn't speak with production as to how they plan to shoot it? That sequence doesn't come directly from his script?  He doesn't approve and hire the directors?   He doesn't approve that sequence edited that way with that music in the show?

you do know in television the executive producer is the one that maintains the vision and gets final say? Vince Gilligan on Breaking Bad, Matthew Weiner on Mad Men, etc. 

so anything "bad" is Hirst, anything good someone else gets the credit? 

I think you're 0-2 here.  Most historians agree Ivar in a world of horrific Vikings was the most brutal and cruel, and an executive producer is responsible for the final product on the air. 

 

 

 

[GrimTuesday]

20 hours ago, generalzod said:

So as creator and executive producer he gets zero credit for that Sequence?  He doesn't speak and confer with the directors as to how they plan to shoot the scenes... He doesn't speak with production as to how they plan to shoot it? That sequence doesn't come directly from his script?  He doesn't approve and hire the directors?   He doesn't approve that sequence edited that way with that music in the show?

you do know in television the executive producer is the one that maintains the vision and gets final say? Vince Gilligan on Breaking Bad, Matthew Weiner on Mad Men, etc. 

so anything "bad" is Hirst, anything good someone else gets the credit? 

I think you're 0-2 here.  Most historians agree Ivar in a world of horrific Vikings was the most brutal and cruel, and an executive producer is responsible for the final product on the air.

I'm pretty sure I mentioned this, but you do realize that most of the reports of Ivar's cruelty are from Christian sources, right? Because of course they are going to say he was the fucking devil, most of the viking ones just talk about his mental and physical prowess.

Also, you know what, if Hirst did have a hand in the way that that part was filmed, great, but just because he has final say, and contributes notes, doesn't mean that he was solely responsible for it as you seemed to be suggesting. I have nothing against the guy personally, so I don't really care whether he is vindicated or anything like that. I never watched the Tudors or any of his other shit as far as I know, but what I do know is that he has made some awful writing and story decisions while making this show.

[generalzod]

Even if you go with only Christian reports re Ivar's cruelty and factor in bias... the Christians didn't chronicle Ubbe or Guthrum with the same level of Ivar barbarism or any other Viking to my knowledge.  

So I really think you're on a limb of solely personal preference here not backed by any historical or saga evidence.  Hirst is going with the opinions of most historians regarding Ivar... no shortage of books and articles saying he's the cruelest Viking.  You may not believe it, but you don't have a whole lot, if any facts to support your beliefs (i.e. Chronicles or historical texts within 200 years of the 800s that "exonerate" Ivar).

Whether the character works for you or not (and he works for me) , the character is one of the most historically based in the entire show.  The only point of debate among serious historians is whether he was crippled or not.  

 

 

 

 

[Jedi Renee]

^have u watched the last kingdom @generalzod?

It's pretty dam good. It was one of the first things where I binge watched a whole season on Netflix. Watching it made want more so that is what got me onto vikings. I really think Tlk is superior battle and story wise and pacing. Vikinhs i love but the story isn't always strong and some of the characters aren't great. Good characters like Ragnar carry it though. I think both are great shows for different reasons. 

Can't wait for next episode french rolo

[generalzod]

Re: THE LAST KINGDOM

I'm not a big fan.

I had high hopes with the first two hours... there was some mythic storytelling. 

But Uhtred never got past the male model block of wood as an actor for me.  And his conflict never hooked me in a big way.

The LK Vikings depictions and visuals all ultimately felt derivative to me of the series Vikings... they had no distinctive take ...and actor wise can't hold a candle to Hirst's Vikings...LK  Ubbe and Guthrum feel like they would be minor characters actor wise on Vikings.

When there's patches of good writing, it ultimately devolved into a BBC bloodless exercise... those that complain about Vikings writing seem to say it becomes melodrama... TLK becomes worse than melodrama, I often find it BORING. 

But TLK boring is better than the comatose snooze  of the Medicis or the odd boredom of MARCO POLO... or the visually static BLACK SAILS.

I feel like comparing the Last Kingdom to Vikings is like comparing Star Trek the Motion Picture to Star Wars...At the end of the day, one is slow and dry and the other is mythic and energetic and mass appeal with fun performances.  

But to each their own.

 

 

[red snow]

3 hours ago, generalzod said:

But TLK boring is better than the comatose snooze  of the Medicis or the odd boredom of MARCO POLO... or the visually static BLACK SAILS.

 

But to each their own.

 

 

Yeah, I think we are on different wavelengths.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the viking's cast are nailing it performance-wise. I could see how Travis Fimmel's performance might confuse me into thinking everyone else is great but I'd say they were all capable actors. Floki has his moments and Ecbert was good when the character was. The writing probably lets most of the Viking's cast down and again only Fimmel is able to rise above it consistently.

I'd say Vikings at its best (season 2) is still stronger than TLK but would probably have TLK on a par or better tha any other season of Vikings. TLK also has its flaws - it managed to have a pretty pointless episode when it only had 6 episodes to play with but episode 3 or 4 was excellent when all the characters started to feel like they drove their plot and not the plot drove their characters. That was really promising.

[Nictarion]

^TLK had 8 episodes.

[Castel]

On 12/14/2016 at 0:15 AM, generalzod said:

or the visually static BLACK SAILS.

Vikings wishes it was as good as Black Sails.

 

Anyway, on this episode, is Lagertha's move boring to anyone else? Like...at least Aslaug has a connection to Ivar which makes her partly interesting. 

[generalzod]

40 minutes ago, Castel said:

Vikings wishes it was as good as Black Sails.

 

Anyway, on this episode, is Lagertha's move boring to anyone else? Like...at least Aslaug has a connection to Ivar which makes her partly interesting. 

You would be hard pressed, to find a critic anywhere or use ratings as a metric to claim Black SAILS with its lackluster directing (is everything shot in a static medium shot) and its waste of Ray Stevenson is better on any level down to the catering, than Vikings.  It's performance is so poor they canceled it after 4 seasons. 

If you had even said Rome or GOT I'd take that opinion seriously. 

but to each their own. 

According to IMDb's popularity metrics, you can see where Vikings lands.  Note the utter lack of TLK and Black Sails.  Hell, the meager to nonexistent podcasts and fanvideos on YouTube tells you everything you need to know about those shows.

1.      Game of Thrones

2.      Stranger Things

3.      Walking Dead

4.      Westworld

5.      American Horror Story

6.      The Flash

7.      Mr. Robot

8.      Orange is the New Black

9.      Vikings

10.  Daredevil

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.imdb.com/best-of/top-tv-shows-of-2016/ls066361103?pf_rd_m=A2FGELUUNOQJNL&pf_rd_p=2754295562&pf_rd_r=18X9Y2ZHRM6TACA165KH&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=15061&pf_rd_i=homepage&ref_=hm_bo16_tv_hd

[HexMachina]

The fuck was this nonesense? This has to be the most glaringly obvious example of bad plotting and awful dialogue Vikings has seen in a long time. The only good thing about this episode was the dynamic between Ragnar and Ivar, which was admittefly great. Despite how contrived their survival was. 

i had issues with Lagertha's revenge plot last week but it only got worse this week. Introducing Torvi (ugh, can she kust be booted from the show already? No, of course not, Hirst insists on shoehorning her in and giving her important roles, constantly) into and the nonesense with Margrethe. Lagertha's move just made no sense at all. I dislike Aslaug but how has she been a bad Queen? The whole conflict interests me not one bit.

Frankia was as bad as feared. But at least we didnt have to deal with the King this time.

[Corvinus85]

14 minutes ago, generalzod said:

You would be hard pressed, to find a critic anywhere or use ratings as a metric to claim Black SAILS with its lackluster directing (is everything shot in a static medium shot) and its waste of Ray Stevenson is better on any level down to the catering, than Vikings.  It's performance is so poor they canceled it after 4 seasons. 

If you had even said Rome or GOT I'd take that opinion seriously. 

but to each their own. 

According to IMDb's popularity metrics, you can see where Vikings lands.  Note the utter lack of TLK and Black Sails.  Hell, the meager to nonexistent podcasts and fanvideos on YouTube tells you everything you need to know about those shows.

1.      Game of Thrones

 

2.      Stranger Things

 

3.      Walking Dead

 

4.      Westworld

 

5.      American Horror Story

 

6.      The Flash

 

7.      Mr. Robot

 

8.      Orange is the New Black

 

9.      Vikings

 

10.  Daredevil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.imdb.com/best-of/top-tv-shows-of-2016/ls066361103?pf_rd_m=A2FGELUUNOQJNL&pf_rd_p=2754295562&pf_rd_r=18X9Y2ZHRM6TACA165KH&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=15061&pf_rd_i=homepage&ref_=hm_bo16_tv_hd

Or it could be that those shows just have a PR problem. I don't care how static it's shot, the visuals are still better, and the writing and acting are way over Vikings. Only Travis Fimmel matches the likes Toby Stephens and Luke Arnold. And while it's possible that Black Sails could have continued on for more seasons if it had better ratings, it was always a finite story, so the fact it got 4 seasons is not measly at all.

[Castel]

11 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Or it could be that those shows just have a PR problem. I don't care how static it's shot, the visuals are still better, and the writing and acting are way over Vikings. Only Travis Fimmel matches the likes Toby Stephens and Luke Arnold. And while it's possible that Black Sails could have continued on for more seasons if it had better ratings, it was always a finite story, so the fact it got 4 seasons is not measly at all.

Yeah, I don't particularly care about  the argument-from-IMDB. 

Not to mention the whole talk about cancellation ignores the fact that Black Sails was always renewed pretty quickly, I think S2 was renewed when S1 was showing in Comic Con(before premiere),and every season after that renewed before the last one aired so Starz seemed to know what they had. But, like Spartacus, they seem to give these types of stories an end-date. 

 

 

[Corvinus85]

18 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

The fuck was this nonesense? This has to be the most glaringly obvious example of bad plotting and awful dialogue Vikings has seen in a long time. The only good thing about this episode was the dynamic between Ragnar and Ivar, which was admittefly great. Despite how contrived their survival was. 

i had issues with Lagertha's revenge plot last week but it only got worse this week. Introducing Torvi (ugh, can she kust be booted from the show already? No, of course not, Hirst insists on shoehorning her in and giving her important roles, constantly) into and the nonesense with Margrethe. Lagertha's move just made no sense at all. I dislike Aslaug but how has she been a bad Queen? The whole conflict interests me not one bit.

Frankia was as bad as feared. But at least we didnt have to deal with the King this time.

I am with you on this one. Kattegat's prosperity shows that Aslaug cannot be considered a bad queen. My guess is that Lagertha is coveting Kattegat's wealth and just like she did with Kalf, she never really forgot how she was wronged, and is using the "she's a witch/bad queen" excuse to depose Aslaug. But in Kalf's case, she did promise she would kill him one day, while in Aslaug's case I don't recall of any veiled threats that Lagertha had made prior to last week's episode. So Hirst should not let the viewer attempt to come up with an explanation, Lagertha's reasons should be clearly defined. 

If Ragnar's death is a direct consequence of his current action, then that would be some extremely disappointing writing there.

I don't know how Aelle gets his hands on him, but at least have him be captured in a battle, possibly betrayed by an ally, not blatantly surrender himself, leave a witness behind, because he is tired of living on one hand, but still wants revenge on the Saxons on the other hand, but he is letting his sons get that revenge. And I would not be surprised if that's where Hirst is going.

[Castel]

9 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

I am with you on this one. Kattegat's prosperity shows that Aslaug cannot be considered a bad queen. My guess is that Lagertha is coveting Kattegat's wealth and just like she did with Kalf, she never really forgot how she was wronged, and is using the "she's a witch/bad queen" excuse to depose Aslaug. But in Kalf's case, she did promise she would kill him one day, while in Aslaug's case I don't recall of any veiled threats that Lagertha had made prior to last week's episode. So Hirst should not let the viewer attempt to come up with an explanation, Lagertha's reasons should be clearly defined. 

If Ragnar's death is a direct consequence of his current action, then that would be some extremely disappointing writing there.

  Hide contents

I don't know how Aelle gets his hands on him, but at least have him be captured in a battle, possibly betrayed by an ally, not blatantly surrender himself, leave a witness behind, because he is tired of living on one hand, but still wants revenge on the Saxons on the other hand, but he is letting his sons get that revenge. And I would not be surprised if that's where Hirst is going.

 

The spoiler is almost certainly where Hirst is going.

As for Aslaug, Lagertha seemed to blame Ragnar more than anyone iirc, now all of a sudden, years upon years later, it's on Aslaug

[generalzod]

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

Or it could be that those shows just have a PR problem. I don't care how static it's shot, the visuals are still better, and the writing and acting are way over Vikings. Only Travis Fimmel matches the likes Toby Stephens and Luke Arnold. And while it's possible that Black Sails could have continued on for more seasons if it had better ratings, it was always a finite story, so the fact it got 4 seasons is not measly at all.

This is a tremendously minority opinion.   Just based on fan videos on YouTube and critics reviews of both series.

the fact you concede it's statically shot says everything. 

but I get it-- you like anchovy pizza it's way better than pepperoni no matter what the rest of the world says.