cdawnb Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 As much as its gonna suck to see Ragnar die, if they actually do go through with that it'll build up Red Wedding style hype for Vikings which might actually be the push it needs to really get to that next level. Not everyone has read the sagas, you might want to spoiler tag that. It could, but I think it will be a couple of seasons before we see that. The boys have to grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martini Sigil Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 I'm amazed at the amount of historical knowledge some of you have.... For this particular show, I prefer to be in the dark, and watch like its complete fiction.... but reading this thread is a lot of fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 :cool4: History's the coolest thing going. But stories can be equally cool if done right. Have Bernard Cornwell's latest Saxon Chronicle, The Empty Throne. Have only looked into it, but it does not look promising. Ay-up Uhtred was too old keep going as the greatest warrior ever. So now he's reincarnated into his son, and sounds exactly the same, but -- you know, history has moved on since the days when Uhtred was this guy's age. Just mention this because I'm always thinking of this Cornwell series when watching Vikings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Just rewatched the season two episode. Both Blood Eagle and this one in the same season -- woo. The stage choreography in the scenes in which Horik is irreversibly trapped and he knows it, while all his fine plans to wipe out Ragnar, all his family and all his supporters visibly drain over a period of beats out of his face, and one by one the figures walk out of the place in where he's trapped, in different directlons: stage right, stage left, upstage, downstage. All those figures that he'd planned cold-bloodedly to kill out nothing more than envy of Ragnar, his farseeing ability to plan, while continuing to command the loyalties of so many -- who also seem to genuinely love the man (or so it seemed to me). This was the scale of tragedy. It could be taking place in an amphitheater of ancient Greece or equally on the stage of Shakespeare's Globe Theater, or on a stage in Joe Papp's Public Theater. Have we ever seen this done on a television entertainment series before? This was worthy of the works, the legendary personages and the events, that inspired the eddas, chronicles, histories, sagas and epics on which Vikings is based. I am so impressed. I was so impressed by everything the first time I watched I wasn't able to get it all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdawnb Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 :cool4: History's the coolest thing going. But stories can be equally cool if done right. Have Bernard Cornwell's latest Saxon Chronicle, The Empty Throne. Have only looked into it, but it does not look promising. Ay-up Uhtred was too old keep going as the greatest warrior ever. So now he's reincarnated into his son, and sounds exactly the same, but -- you know, history has moved on since the days when Uhtred was this guy's age. Just mention this because I'm always thinking of this Cornwell series when watching Vikings. I really don't mind the historical inaccuracies in Vikings. I know it bothers some people and you get a lot of rolling eyes and pearl clutching over it, but I belive that does a grave disservice to the show. The story is so very very good and you are getting a glimpse into a world that has never been seen this way before. I also love Cornwell. :laugh: Commenting on your other post because I can't multi quote on my phone- Yeah, that last episode is what you call a payoff for sure. The slow build to it all season is right there, especially when you watch it a second time. As much a I loved Elizabeth, this is Hirst's best work by far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I really don't mind the historical inaccuracies in Vikings. I know it bothers some people and you get a lot of rolling eyes and pearl clutching over it, but I belive that does a grave disservice to the show. The story is so very very good and you are getting a glimpse into a world that has never been seen this way before. I also love Cornwell. :laugh: Commenting on your other post because I can't multi quote on my phone- Yeah, that last episode is what you call a payoff for sure. The slow build to it all season is right there, especially when you watch it a second time. As much a I loved Elizabeth, this is Hirst's best work by far. Inaccuracies can work, depending on how they're handled. Some of them in The Tudors I minded a great deal, and others, not at all. Overall it seemed to me that the flavor of what it is like to live dependent upon a whimsical, tyranical king of that family and time was well captured. The ones in Vikings don't bother me, but that's probably because I don't know enough of that world and the history to notice things other than the hair and the teeth, etc. :) But then, like Vikings, Shakespeare's history plays weren't necessarily accurate either. They were tragedies, at least sometimes. :) Horik was there, witnessing as Ragnar executed the blood eagle on Jarl Borg. That Horik is not Ragnar's equal is proven that he could watch that and not take into his very guts that Ragnar's force of will is so strong that very few can compete with Ragnar -- and he's not one of them. Horik, Horik, Horik -- what game did you think you were playing? Also -- Ragnar, why kill all of Horik's girl children and yet keep the eldest, his son, alive? That's a weed, that within dramatic entertainment convention, is going to strangle you some how. Maybe that how, really, the tragedy isn't Horik's at all -- it's Ragnar's own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Inaccuracies can work, depending on how they're handled. Some of them in The Tudors I minded a great deal, and others, not at all. Overall it seemed to me that the flavor of what it is like to live dependent upon a whimsical, tyranical king of that family and time was well captured. The ones in Vikings don't bother me, but that's probably because I don't know enough of that world and the history to notice things other than the hair and the teeth, etc. :) But then, like Vikings, Shakespeare's history plays weren't necessarily accurate either. They were tragedies, at least sometimes. :) Horik was there, witnessing as Ragnar executed the blood eagle on Jarl Borg. That Horik is not Ragnar's equal is proven that he could watch that and not take into his very guts that Ragnar's force of will is so strong that very few can compete with Ragnar -- and he's not one of them. Horik, Horik, Horik -- what game did you think you were playing? Also -- Ragnar, why kill all of Horik's girl children and yet keep the eldest, his son, alive? That's a weed, that within dramatic entertainment convention, is going to strangle you some how. Maybe that how, really, the tragedy isn't Horik's at all -- it's Ragnar's own. A problem with inaccuracies that you overlook is that a lot of people watching won't take them as inaccuracies, and thus will get a skewed view of history and by extension the world. Plenty of people believe that 300 is a more or less correct depiction of Sparta and Persia, for example. If it works with a completely ridiculous movie like that, you can bet that it will with more realistic productions like Vikings. Braveheart is another example of a really innacurate movie that still managed to flare up tonnes of anti-English sentiments in Scotland, and it would hardly be reaching to say that it probably ended up helping the political independence movement over there quite a bit. So I think that while entertainment is fun and all, you do also have a degree of responsibility when making movies that you claim are about things that are real. Like history. Because a whole bunch of people watching it won't know enough about the subject to pick out the true parts from the just-for-entertainment ones, but will rather swallow it whole. Now with Vikings this isn't too serious since the show doesn't really demonize any side or does completely ridiculous stuff. So it's okay there I guess. But with movies like 300 in particular I definitely think that it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 A problem with inaccuracies that you overlook is that a lot of people watching won't take them as inaccuracies, and thus will get a skewed view of history and by extension the world. Plenty of people believe that 300 is a more or less correct depiction of Sparta and Persia, for example. If it works with a completely ridiculous movie like that, you can bet that it will with more realistic productions like Vikings. Braveheart is another example of a really innacurate movie that still managed to flare up tonnes of anti-English sentiments in Scotland, and it would hardly be reaching to say that it probably ended up helping the political independence movement over there quite a bit. So I think that while entertainment is fun and all, you do also have a degree of responsibility when making movies that you claim are about things that are real. Like history. Because a whole bunch of people watching it won't know enough about the subject to pick out the true parts from the just-for-entertainment ones, but will rather swallow it whole. Now with Vikings this isn't too serious since the show doesn't really demonize any side or does completely ridiculous stuff. So it's okay there I guess. But with movies like 300 in particular I definitely think that it isn't. :agree: 100%. Which is why that travesty of French history, Scotland's history and wars of religion that is Reign leaves me snorting. A lot of other stuff. When it comes to matters that still affect who peoples, nations, cultures and so on are, such as treating slavery as a benign southern system that didn't matter all that much for the Civil War and everything that has followed -- that's worse than irresponsible, that's out-and-out lying -- and lying that people point to as 'real history.' Just as, as you point out, Braveheart. What a travesty that was -- you just bet royal princesses galloped around a country at night without even a cloak or single attendent. And we're not even talking about the political stuff yet! :bang: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 :agree: 100%. Which is why that travesty of French history, Scotland's history and wars of religion that is Reign leaves me snorting. A lot of other stuff. When it comes to matters that still affect who peoples, nations, cultures and so on are, such as treating slavery as a benign southern system that didn't matter all that much for the Civil War and everything that has followed -- that's worse than irresponsible, that's out-and-out lying -- and lying that people point to as 'real history.' Just as, as you point out, Braveheart. What a travesty that was -- you just bet royal princesses galloped around a country at night without even a cloak or single attendent. And we're not even talking about the political stuff yet! :bang: Please re-frame from mentioning Reign, i try to forget I ever clicked on its tab in Netflix. Braveheart is such a dangerous film, before I actually started reading about the history of England, I actually thought some of it was true. Mel took making up shit to a whole new level, and i think opened the gates to the unnamed creature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdawnb Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 It doesn't bother me in the least. I don't expect stories based on events to be accurate. Documentaries, history books, yes, fictional stories, no. Reign is bad, period. It's a travesty all on its own, inaccuracies aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nictarion Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 It doesn't bother me in the least. I don't expect stories based on events to be accurate. Documentaries, history books, yes, fictional stories, no. :agree: I don't care I love Braveheart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 :agree: I don't care I love Braveheart. What do you say to people who point to Braveheart as proof of how the middle ages really were? For me the Great Unmentionable is the vile Tarantino travesty of what the South was like before the Civil War. Tthe only bounty hunters in the South were chasing self-emancipated slaves. The sheriffs' function were to keep slave jails for which they charged a daily fee for housing runaways, dealers' coffles and travelers' servants, and, for another fee, administer whippings to 'bad' servants. That's an aspect of a race based economy and society: all the criminal legal system from the courts to the law enforces is about keeping the slaves under control and from rebellion, and punishing them when they disobey those laws. It's odd a curious develpment that Black Sails, which shares at least one co-assistant exec producer with Wmarshal's Great Unmentionable, does get its historical elements more right than wrong. Well, I'm not so sure about the Black Sails episodes in which a cargo of slaves has been smuggled out under everyone's noses -- as you could smell a slaver many knots away. OTOH, there were only 30 in that cargo . . . but where did they come from? Did I miss something? The sequences of those events were so weirdly written or edited I was never sure quite what was going on with those parts, including not sure if they'd gotten right or gotten wrong. Maybe they were so afraid of offending they just hazed and vagued it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Veltigar Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 What do you say to people who used Braveheart as an example of how the middle ages really were? I agree with them and let them watch this short vid that explains everything ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdawnb Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Full trailer for Season 3. http://youtu.be/R_KYBYlVuRc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Fuckin hypeeeee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bauer 24 Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 How spoilery is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenlyIsNotRight Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 How spoilery is it? It's a lot of the same stuff that's in the teaser, just with more footage. The only really new thing I got from it was that Kwenthrith or however you spell it seems to be a bit more involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Full trailer for Season 3. http://youtu.be/R_KYBYlVuRc Interesting stuff Well it looks like Floki still is pissed of the christian stuff, and some new lordlings about in England, wonder how far time has past since the second season. I am done for the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Can someone tell me, is the lady to Ecbert's right( our visual left) Aethelwulf's wife? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bennis of the Brown Shield Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 :agree: 100%. Which is why that travesty of French history, Scotland's history and wars of religion that is Reign leaves me snorting. A lot of other stuff. When it comes to matters that still affect who peoples, nations, cultures and so on are, such as treating slavery as a benign southern system that didn't matter all that much for the Civil War and everything that has followed -- that's worse than irresponsible, that's out-and-out lying -- and lying that people point to as 'real history.' Just as, as you point out, Braveheart. What a travesty that was -- you just bet royal princesses galloped around a country at night without even a cloak or single attendent. And we're not even talking about the political stuff yet! :bang: I have not watched Reign, don't think I will now either :drunk: . Yeah, I agree. I think one of the more distasteful aspect of Mel Gibson's historical films is his tendency to distort facts to propagate various political opinions of his. Like how much he hates England for some reason. You see similar tendencies in other historical movies and series though. Vikings not entirely excepted. Like how Ragnar in season 1 is this ambitious self made entrepreneur held down by "Big Government" that wants to regulate his sea voyages and forces him to pay unfair taxes. When he in reality (if we assume that he actually existed) was a prince, and even if he wasn't a Jarl wouldn't have had the authority to do stuff like that anyway. Plus that people of course already knew where Britain was. So it rather seems to be a way to make him look like an ideal modern ´Murican or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.