Veltigar

The Last Kingdom II - NO MERCY [SPOlLERS Season I & II]

293 posts in this topic

Don't you know that Michael Hirst created the Vikings?  Like the real Vikings. He put some tattoos on them and gave them long hair and said it was good, someday it would make for great tv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

The battle was meh after seeing Vikings and GoT?

It was probably the only instance of shield wall against shield wall we've seen on television. The first true rendering of how a medieval battle really looked like. And it was fucking awesome.

I'm not sure if you're trolling here or not. It was an okay battle for sure, but compared to the Battle of the Bastards, Hardhome, the raid on Paris, etc. in Got and Vikings, it just wasn't in the same league. And I'm just not as excited about seeing twice as many dudes with shields as you apparently are. Also, for what I'm sure are budgetary reasons, the battle wasn't shown in full and it ended with such a cheesy 80s freeze frame that I literally thought the stream from Netflix froze up. On top of that, Uhtred's sudden superhero strength and agility was a tad bit off-putting during the battle. Granted, you could say he was empowered by seeing the severed head of the third woman he loved in eight episodes thrown at him, but that's a stretch considering he single handedly breached the Dane shield wall whereas only one episode earlier he was struggling to defeat just one person in combat. 

I'm not trying to hate on the show, just pointing out why, comparatively, the season finale ONE DECISIVE BATTLE was kinda meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, generalzod said:

On that we agree.  The battles on TLK are weak sauce by comparison. 

And of course it rips off Vikings, from the very idea to make a television series about that period in history to the face tattoos, hipster haircuts and guyliner

https://www.google.com/search?q=last+kingdom+vikings&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjomsi9nfzQAhXLh1QKHVNhDogQ_AUICCgC&biw=375&bih=559#imgrc=mq1dcgoQ9Xs5tM%3A

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=last+kingdom+vikings&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjomsi9nfzQAhXLh1QKHVNhDogQ_AUICCgC&biw=375&bih=559#imgrc=4l5bqJKFmkWwNM%3A

 

 

 

Ha Ha Ha!

 

Especially as Cornwell was doing this book series long before Hirst's travesty of Vikings.

 

Dude, wtf is your problem with TLK??????  Unless, of course, you are a Hirst relative / sock puppet?  Hmmmmm?

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the filmic representations of guyliner, hipster haircut, face and head tattooed Vikings before Vikings?  Put up or shut up. 

And thank you to the gentleman who pointed out in detail the sad excuse for battles on TLK. 

Anyone who criticized TLK and thinks it's very existence as a television series is due to Vikings is a Hirst puppet?  I didn't realize this was an echo chamber of groupthink.

And I suppose the Shannara Chronicles would have been made a series had GOT never existed?  Shannara owes its sad existence on television to the trail blazed by GOT.  

Here, I'll help you defensive LK fans out.  Vikings doesn't exist on TV without GOT blazing the trail.  The Last Kingdom doesn't exist on TV without Vikings blazing the trail.  Those are facts, those very genres and subject matters were road tested as viable television series concepts worthy of greenlight by previous shows.  

Game of Thrones begat Vikings and the Shannara Chronicles and the forthcoming Emerald City.

Vikings begat TLK  and the very Eps cite Michael Hirst as an influence in interviews! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by generalzod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PetyrPunkinhead said:

And I'm just not as excited about seeing twice as many dudes with shields as you apparently are.

Ok, then continue watching Vikings, and refrain from real historical fiction. I'm sure, the stupid chaotic battles in open field of Vikings with shirtless Rollo are more to your liking.

But let me tell you something: people in that time weren't stupid. They were either mounted on a horse or behind a shield wall. Fighting without these two things meant only one thing: death, chaos and defeat.

And vikings, historically, weren't keen on assaulting fortresses. Even if I enjoyed the battle of Paris in Vikings, it was moronic and  suicidal.

To each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pliskin said:

Ok, then continue watching Vikings, and refrain from real historical fiction. I'm sure, the stupid chaotic battles in open field of Vikings with shirtless Rollo are more to your liking.

But let me tell you something: people in that time weren't stupid. They were either mounted on a horse or behind a shield wall. Fighting without these two things meant only one thing: death, chaos and defeat.

And vikings, historically, weren't keen on assaulting fortresses. Even if I enjoyed the battle of Paris in Vikings, it was moronic and  suicidal.

 

Regarding shirtless Rollo...

 

Berserker 

One of a class of legendary Norse warriors who fought frenzied and shirtless regardless of wounds.

One theory that has some merit due to ancient texts, is the description of the Viking berserker going into battle wearing the pelts of wolves. This is also backed by the finding of a bronze plate from the Vendel era which cross paths with the Viking era running from
around 550 AD to 793 AD, and showed a warrior adorned with the pelt of a wolf. The texts also mention how shields were still used by the Viking berserker, that they were adorned with the blood of their enemies.

Another common theory was that the berserker would fight in a state of undress, shirtless and armour less. This could have been for two reasons, firstly it could be that while under the rage of the beserkergang, the warrior would lose his normal sense of self preservation, which would fit with the overall impression of the Viking berserker. The second reason would be in battle the lack of clothing or armour would give more movement or even a psychological advantage for the berserker.

I can post some links to a Berserker doc if you like. 

Vikings siege of Paris:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris_(845)

 

Both shows are historical fiction, btw.  There was no half Viking/half Saxon named Uhtred in the 800s.  He doesn't even exist in myth, chronicles,  or sagas of that era.  He's  a fictional creation of Cornwell loosely inspired by dudes from the 10th and 11th century.

 

 

Edited by generalzod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, generalzod said:

Both shows are historical fiction, btw.  There was no half Viking/half Saxon named Uhtred in the 800s.  He doesn't even exist in myth, chronicles,  or sagas of that era.  He's  a fictional creation of Cornwell loosely inspired by dudes from the 10th and 11th century.

No shit. Fictional as in historical fiction. I'm sorry but I don't consider Vikings historical fiction, it's a loose adaptation of the sagas. Which has no historical bearing.

And I didn't dispute the historicity of the sack of Paris, I talked about assaulting a fortress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical fiction definition :

the genre of literature, film, etc.,comprising narratives that take place inthe past and are characterized chiefly byan imaginative reconstruction ofhistorical events and personages.

you may not consider Vikings historical fiction, buy it nevertheless fits the definition.  As does TLK. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man.... this thread has become like a Star Trek/Star Wars argument at an after school chess club...

While I prefer S1 of TLK to Vikings as a whole, I think the first seasons of both shows are comparable ... and while Vikings has taken a hit in quality the past season or so, I still enjoy it. ... and to be fair, at least the History Channel doesn't keep you waiting two years between seasons.... even though I read all of the Cornwall books, I will need a refresher for S2.... I forget what the hell was going on when we left off...

regardless, I see no reason not to enjoy these shows on their own merits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting to me and will only lead to further debate...is Vikings likes time jumps.    In the current Vikings season, we seem to be on the precipice of the Great Heathen Army invasion of England...we're literally one time jump away from the two series literally covering the exact same time period/events.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if the Vikings cultist wouldn't come here and yell at those of us who really really really like the first season of The Last Kingdom, and thought it was much superior in our critical judgment than the last installments of Vikings.

Why isn't your Vikings subject here enough for you for you to drool your astonished worship?  Why bother coming here and insist we participate in your worship? Is it because not enough people are over there drooling? Is it because you haven't got people to see, places to go and things to do, so think fighting with people you don't agree with a productive way to waste your time?  Because that is stupid., Really dude, what are you getting out of this highjacking?

 

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison between the series was not brought up by me on this thread it was brought up on the previous page.  

If if anyone is cultists it's some people here.  Yeah, TLK took zero from the look of Hirst's Vikings. :rolleyes:

Here's a reasonable statement: "Vikings is not my bag but I'm glad they made it because Steve Butchard didn't even pitch TLK to the BBC before Vikings was a few seasons in and a hit.  The success of Vikings convinced the BBC to pursue the subject matter and make the show.  "

All of which is factually true.  

 

Edited by generalzod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's factually not true, I'm sorry.

He said he started working on it more or less when Vikings started. And he didn't even watch Vikings in the mean time or anything with swords, for obvious reasons.

And I think the BBC couldn't care less about Vikings. The argument could be made for GoT, though, yes. Even if the shows are very different.

Now, I will stop feeding the troll, sorry guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20151007/last-kingdom-casts-light-on-the-dark-ages

 

http://deadline.com/2015/07/the-last-kingdom-downton-abbey-the-tudors-game-of-thrones-tca-1201488504/

 

They were somehow inspired by Michael Hirst's The TUDORS but were somehow oblivious to his other series VIKINGS, a hit on cable and Amazon and internationally.

Even  if I believed Butchard's two year timeline (I don't) it still puts them well after the first season of Vikings.

 

 

 

 

Edited by generalzod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O for pete's sake, generalzod.  Give it a rest.  Nobody cares and anyway you're generally wrong and wasting your time.

Or, as per usual, you have absolutely nothing else to do or think of or to go or to see.  That's, yah, well really too bad.

 

 :D

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

Man.... this thread has become like a Star Trek/Star Wars argument at an after school chess club...

While I prefer S1 of TLK to Vikings as a whole, I think the first seasons of both shows are comparable ... and while Vikings has taken a hit in quality the past season or so, I still enjoy it. ... and to be fair, at least the History Channel doesn't keep you waiting two years between seasons.... even though I read all of the Cornwall books, I will need a refresher for S2.... I forget what the hell was going on when we left off...

regardless, I see no reason not to enjoy these shows on their own merits.

Agree. This taking sides thing is kind of bizarre. Both shows are very similar in a lot of ways, but neither is great enough to really merit taking sides on. Just enjoy both.  I can barely tell the difference between them at times anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Antony said:

Damn this dude has managed to buzzkill the Vikings and Last Kingdom threads, shame. 

Damn betcha.  This is anything but entertaining.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched series one in the last few days as it is up on iPlayer and missed it first time round. I really enjoyed it, despite not finding Uthred as likeable a character as you would expect him to be. I think that actually worked to its advantage as it added to the dark grey vs dark grey morality of the conflict, with few genuinely likeable people on either side.

I think the series could have done with a few more episodes to slow the pace down a little and flesh out the supporting characters. Or maybe they could have got rid of the Cornwall subplot as it was the weakest episode and had few consequences that could not have been created another way, to give them another hour to use elsewhere. As a result things like Uthred the even younger’s death were rushed and Wulfhere’s betrayal became obvious.

I’m not as big a fan of the final battle as some, seemingly. Uthred charging the Danish shield wall alone, surviving, catching a spear and then killing Skorpa with it was one of the few times it felt unrealistic. Maybe it works better in the books, where Uthred as a narrator could be embellishing his accomplishments. Also I found it a little odd that a nun, Hild, was suddenly revealed to be an expert horse-rider and then fought brilliantly on the front line without armour.

One very minor issue, that irrationally annoyed me, was that there was no capital ‘h’ in the font used for the place name captions — leading to WINChESTER.

A lot of criticism for something I liked, I know. The side characters were fantastic - Alfred, Brida, Beocca and Aethelwold particularly. As someone who has never read the books it reminds me of an early medieval version of Christian Cameron’s Long War series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now