Vikings X: Halfway Through the Madness

[Astromech]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 9:52 AM, generalzod said:

I agree, Martell Spy.

Astromech, you and I will never agree on Ecbert and I think you're reaching.  When the time jump happened, I thought... how will Ecbert be after 7-10 years?  More conniving and evil?  Something else?    Ragnar was a pariah for losing in France and had years to stew on his next move.  Ecbert  was  on the opposite trajectory.  He'd won.   United most of England.  Vikings defeated.  Aelle was his bitch.  He was banging his son's wife, had an awesome grandson, and his only misfire was he couldn't seem to get his son Aethelwulf killed no matter how many suicide missions he sent him on.

So while Ragnar focused outwardly, how can I get revenge on Ecbert when I'm a pariah king and the gods no longer favor me...But while Ragnar had formulated a plan, human beings are also contradictory and for various reasons Ragnar also just wanted to die.   So he said goodbye to his loved ones (since he's on a path to death either way) and hanged himself.  When the gods refused to let him die, he went and implemented the plan he had formulated for years "in the desert." 

Before the time jump, Ecbert would speak to God and say essentially "hey, I will dine with Satan himself Lord if it gets me the power I want.  My kingdom ain't in heaven it's down here on earth."

7-10 years later when Ecbert prays it's with sincerity and seeking moral guidance from the Almighty.  He's praying on what to do with his fellow King Ragnar.  Just as Ragnar is not the same man, neither is Ecbert.

Other reasons  to believe that Ecbert has focused his journey inwards and had developed a conscience (which blunts him as the same next level schemer he'd been)  in the intervening years:

1) He is honest with Ragnar about the settlement massacre.  No spin, no excuses.

2) He frees Ragnar from the cage, even though the probability is high Ragnar will kill him.  But Ecbert would see that as paying for his sins.  He's trusting Ragnar won't kill him even though that would make them square for the settlement and Ragnar would go down in a blaze of glory straight to Valhalla.  The second Ecbert opened the cage it said not only was he trusting Ragnar, but there were things more important than scheming and power. 

3) Ecbert lets his guard down and speaks honestly about everything from Athelstan to religion.

4) Ecbert prays to God with deep sincerity.

5) Ecbert let's Ragnar see Athelstan's son.

Based on this evidence, Ecbert is in a place where I think he regrets a lot of what  he's done.  He's won and has everything he wants, now what?  The cost of victory was losing his soul and it seems to me he is wrestling with who he's become.  He has regret.  He struggles with morality now, not power.

And did Ragnar kill him when he let him out of the cage? No.  Ragnar was completely honest with Ecbert.  All Ragnar asked was that Ecbert kill him and send his crippled son home. 

The Ecbert of 10 years ago would have put Ragnar at ease, then killed Ragnar, Ivar, and Magnus.

(And it would have been a fatally flawed plan, unless Ecbert killed all the villagers who saw Ragnar arrested.  People talk and word and gossip spreads even in a pre-internet age.  Any Viking party that got to Wessex that either spoke  English or had a translator would have been able to find a villager who had heard the story or been there themselves.  The idea that all villagers would resist intimidation, torture,or bribery is ludicrous.  If that's the case there would never be any informants throughout history) 

But as I said, this is Ecbert wrestling with his conscience.  He frees Magnus, even though that could bite him in the ass as he's Kwenthrith's son could come back with an Army some day and has a claim to the crown of Mercia.  

And Ragnar has only asked that Ecbert execute him and free his crippled son.  And Ecbert is clearly wrestling with that decision.  He prays on it, 

Any way you slice it, a Viking Army led by Ragnar's other sons  is coming to revenge or free Ragnar. And Vikings don't pay ransom so they will kill and kill until they recover their father or his body. 

So when Ragnar says, have Aelle kill me, my sons are coming either way but let them take it out on Aelle...trust me, "don't be afraid."  Ecbert, a different person than he was 10 years ago, takes a chance and does the moral thing.  He frees Ivar and hands him over to Aelle.

There is no putting the genie back in the bottle.  Ragnar's sons know he's in England. It's a revenge culture. They're coming once their father does not return.  And Ecbert, now shown to be more human and wrestling with his conscience, takes a chance and agrees to Ragnar's request.  

No plot armor.  Characters that are flawed and contradictory and have changed.  My opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big long reply was eaten by the board yesterday so I'll reply again. No, well will not agree concerning Ecbert and his decisions in the last episode. If we take your first paragraph as true, why would Ecbert agree to Ragnar's plan when he knows the result will be Vikings on his doorstep again? If Aelle is his bitch, just take over Northumbria. Better him than belligerent, looting and pillaging Vikings. Who wants neighbors like that? It's not like Ecbert isn't cold, calculating and cruel. Remember how he took control of Mercia?

I'm obviously not seeing the same Ecbert you are. Perhaps you're giving him the benefit of the doubt or reading into something that simply isn't there. Ecbert and Ragnar always seemed to be playing chess with one another. However, in the last episode it seemed Ragnar was the only one still playing and Ecbert has taken up checkers. He played right into Ragnar's trap: have him killed and send poor, harmless Ivar back to go raise an army. The Ecbert we have seen in previous seasons wouldn't have fallen for it but instead would have known his only option is to kill Ragnar and Ivar and rid himself of the threat. He already has plausible deniability with the storm, shipwreck and Ragnar and Ivar killing the remaining crew. Sure he respects Ragnar, but that wouldn't prevent him from killing him for the good of Wessex and his crown.

 

Addressing your points:

1) Hard to deny when Ragnar was informed of the massacre from a Norse survivor. He seemed to keep his attempts to seduce Lagertha quiet, however.

2) My reading is completely different. He calls Ragnar's bluff, perhaps due to Ragnar still being chained and having guards right outside the room.

3) Sure they're honest when it comes to Athelstan and religion, but I don't feel he ever puts his guard down. And Ecbert and Ragnar have always been honest with one another when it comes to religion and Athelstan. They have been conniving when it comes to their strategic plans.

4) Perhaps he is sincere when he prays. However, he may still be cuckolding his son and trying to kill him though, too. Wouldn't be the first religious hypocrite.

5) Well, yes. More Athelstan love. It could also be Ecbert showing off his secret or pet and rubbing it in Ragnar's face.

I don't see a moral struggle in Ecbert at all, that is why his decision to go along with Ragnar's plan irritates me so. If anything he is trying harder than ever to secure the kingdom and power of Wessex and his line. Not for himself but for Alfred, son of Athesltan (cue angelic singing).

No Ragnar was not completely honest with Ecbert. He knows Ivar is the most cunning of his sons and he brought him to Ecbert so he would return to Kattegat and raise an army with his brothers. Ivar is not helpless and harmless as he tells Ecbert. Far from it. He also knows his sons won't stop with Aelle. Ecbert should at the very least suspect this, but for some reason just believes Ragnar. Ecbert should know Ragnar really wants revenge against him for the settlement massacre. Whether by his hands or his sons'. Why is Ecbert so blind in this scene? I blame the writing.

Killing Ragnar and Ivar would not be a fatally flawed plan. It would be the only wise plan.  Ecbert tells Ragnar, paraphrasing, that he is their worst nightmare in Wessex. Wouldn't killing Ragnar eliminate Wessex's arguably largest threat? Perhaps Ecbert thought he would get away with the massacre. Seeing Ragnar again and talking revenge dismisses this thought. Simply eliminate the problem. I don't see a danger of informants among a courtyard of soldiers and nobles dependent on and loyal to Ecbert. As I wrote above and before, Vikings don't suspect Ragnar has survived the storm, thanks to Aslaug's dream. A very public execution from Aelle or even a quiet one from Ecbert while allowing Ivar to return home simply invites another, larger Viking threat. Ecbert is smarter than this. His decision not to simply execute Ragnar and Ivar irritates me, but we all know Aelle kills him according to the sagas. So in order to get there we have a poorly written exchange between Ecbert and Ragnar where Ecbert seems like an entirely different, slower, gullible, etc. character, and not the evolved, devout, regretful one you propose.

[RenlyIsNotRight]

On 12/24/2016 at 5:52 AM, GallowKnight said:

Damn, that's harsh.

The second half of the season has definitely been better so far, if still a bit patchy at points. Still not the quality of the earlier seasons, much less the quality I once thought this show would eventually reach though.

On 12/25/2016 at 5:56 AM, GallowKnight said:

Now that I agree on, To the Gates was a fantastic episode and personally I'd put that way above Battle of the Bastards when it comes to TV-battles.

I also liked To the Gates a lot - for sure the highlight of an otherwise uneven season - but comparing it to The Battle of D&Ds Ultimate Fanfiction isn't setting the bar all that high.

[generalzod]

In no order:

Dare I ask why people on this board find the Battle of the Bastards wanting and "D&D" fan service? 

 Astromech... you say " a poorly written exchange between Ecbert and Ragnar where Ecbert seems like an entirely different, slower, gullible, etc. character, and not the evolved, devout, regretful one you propose."

Given that Ecbert is not going anywhere, if he's suddenly an insincere next level schemer again then I agree he HASN'T changed in the intervening years and this is poor writing.  Can we agree on that? 

 But I completely disagree with you on showing Alfred as a manipulation.  That was sincere as sincere gets and you need only look at Ecbert and Judith's faces this was a humane act for someone Athelstan loved and who loved Athelstan.

For the Athelstan haters, I suspect Hirst is trying to dramatize the idea of people who would become saints and the impact they had on the people of the time.  They had a special charisma, and I think Hirst is trying to show how two rival kings were deeply impacted by this Christian "Saint."  Rasputin in the court of Tsar Nicholas would be the anti or darker version of this charisma. 

And why why would ANYONE believe Aslaug's prediction of Ragnar lost at sea?  Lagertha already doesn't believe that prophecy and neither would Floki or Bjorn.   All it would take would be a simple trip to the Seer and Bjorn would get cryptic intel that Ragnar did not die in the ocean.  Which again, leads Bjorn to Wessex, grabbing a random villager who had heard the gossip or seen Ragnar captured, and suddenly Ecbert's hypothetical plan you propose to quietly kill Ragnar and Ivar is in the shitter.

Finally, I think Hirst is intentionally subverting a lot of expectations with Ragnar's fate. Imagine Luke Skywalker a junkie.  Imagine Frodo bitch slapped by Gollum and losing the ring.  Imagine Uncle Junior or Chris Moltisanti outwitting Tony Soprano. I get it's not fan service  to go down this road with Ragnar, but I think it's brave and interesting.  If Hirst were only interested in fan service, Ragnar would have gone down in a blaze of glory.

And that's what baffles me sometimes about these boards.  When Hirst goes down a very original path you could not have predicted based on seasons 1 and 2 as he is with Ragnar, there are people who poop on it as if it's the same as the cheesy incest twins from 4A.

I 100% see a big difference in 4A and 4B.  The biggest issue is if 4A had been 5-6 episodes and focused on his drug addiction and his loss to Rollo, (and deleted the more generic court intrigue in Frankia) I think it would have been much better received. 

 

 

 

[Corvinus85]

5 hours ago, generalzod said:

Dare I ask why people on this board find the Battle of the Bastards wanting and "D&D" fan service? 

I'll oblige you with an answer, but since this is not a GoT thread, I'll condense my answer in spoilers. 

Spoiler

I like plenty about the Battle of the Bastards, like the visuals, the visceral violence, the clash of the cavalry forces, the charge of the knights of the Vale; but there things I didn't like: Jon Snow being a complete idiot and charging like that, but in the aftermath he still gets credited with the victory and made king, not Sansa, who is a real Stark, and brought the help needed to win the battle. The lack of a weapon for Wun Wun - too high a CGI cost to give him a tree trunk? Jon also having ridiculous plot armor, that even a hail or arrows can't touch him; for fuck's sake, give him a shield and put a helm on his head, and that plot armor at least becomes more believable. The neat pile of corpses stacked up really high, really fast, just to create a blockage for Jon's army - perhaps some natural barriers would have, again, been more believable.

5 hours ago, generalzod said:

Astromech... you say " a poorly written exchange between Ecbert and Ragnar where Ecbert seems like an entirely different, slower, gullible, etc. character, and not the evolved, devout, regretful one you propose."

Given that Ecbert is not going anywhere, if he's suddenly an insincere next level schemer again then I agree he HASN'T changed in the intervening years and this is poor writing.  Can we agree on that? 

 But I completely disagree with you on showing Alfred as a manipulation.  That was sincere as sincere gets and you need only look at Ecbert and Judith's faces this was a humane act for someone Athelstan loved and who loved Athelstan.

I said this before, but I really wish all of this had happened sooner in the timeline. Sure, Hirst is now moving fast towards the Great Heathen Army led by Ragnar's sons, but all of this plot with Ragnar feels forced. And on Ecbert ,some clues would have been nice on how he changed in the passing years; last time we saw him he was still a conniving, ambitious king; is the audience supposed to believe that he changed? Granted, his suffering for Aethelstan is sincere, just not sure that's all that drives him now. And the part with making Alfred the apparent heir is still mind boggling. 

5 hours ago, generalzod said:

For the Athelstan haters, I suspect Hirst is trying to dramatize the idea of people who would become saints and the impact they had on the people of the time.  They had a special charisma, and I think Hirst is trying to show how two rival kings were deeply impacted by this Christian "Saint."  Rasputin in the court of Tsar Nicholas would be the anti or darker version of this charisma. 

And why why would ANYONE believe Aslaug's prediction of Ragnar lost at sea?  Lagertha already doesn't believe that prophecy and neither would Floki or Bjorn.   All it would take would be a simple trip to the Seer and Bjorn would get cryptic intel that Ragnar did not die in the ocean.  Which again, leads Bjorn to Wessex, grabbing a random villager who had heard the gossip or seen Ragnar captured, and suddenly Ecbert's hypothetical plan you propose to quietly kill Ragnar and Ivar is in the shitter.

I liked Aethelstan when he was alive, and sure I can see what you're saying.

On Aslaug, didn't she show her prediction abilities before? Lagertha may have said she didn't believe her, but I got the impression she was just refusing to hear it, but there was doubt in her. Plus, Lagertha accused her of being a witch, so if she doesn't believe her, her accusation is complete bullshit. And that is another problem I have with 4B. The Ragnar part is weird but it can still lead to good things. The Kattegat plot so far has been terrible. The only good part in the whole affair was Ubbe trying to fight his way to Lagertha.

5 hours ago, generalzod said:

Finally, I think Hirst is intentionally subverting a lot of expectations with Ragnar's fate. Imagine Luke Skywalker a junkie.  Imagine Frodo bitch slapped by Gollum and losing the ring.  Imagine Uncle Junior or Chris Moltisanti outwitting Tony Soprano. I get it's not fan service  to go down this road with Ragnar, but I think it's brave and interesting.  If Hirst were only interested in fan service, Ragnar would have gone down in a blaze of glory.

And that's what baffles me sometimes about these boards.  When Hirst goes down a very original path you could not have predicted based on seasons 1 and 2 as he is with Ragnar, there are people who poop on it as if it's the same as the cheesy incest twins from 4A.

I don't care for originality for the sake for originality. Not that what I see here is incredibly original - the guy with nothing to lose scheming to bring down his enemies with him is every other villain's plot at the end of a movie, just with different enemies. Of higher importance to me is a cohesive plot that makes sense. Like I said above, some of this stuff is weird and forced. And yes, Ragnar, according to the sagas was captured in battle. And I would prefer to see that, because then at least I would see that he had a motive for vengeance, and took action. And when it comes to adaptations, I also prefer stuff to be as close as possible to the source material (which is another problem I have with GoT; like Renly said, that show is now fanfiction because of this)

[generalzod]

Quick response on Battle of the Bastards... Jon Snow's lack of helmet is an issue on Medieval shows.  The problem as a drama is seeing facial reactions and being able to readily identify the hero in the chaos of a fight scene.  Plus actors want their face seen generally.  Pick your poison.  

Its not an issue generally on Vikings because they are crazy bastards who want to go to Valhalla anyway and Rollo fights Berserker style. 

Re: To the Gates... LOVED seeing the hot oil dumped on the Viking siege ladders and then the Frankish lighting up the Vikings.  Brilliant shot of Ragnar seeing Paris from the rampart, King Ragnar lives in a mud hut shithole by comparison and that castle and cathedral must have seemed otherworldly... And then seeing Rollo repelled and dumped into the Siene after wrecking shit and Ragnar breaking several ribs after he's thrown from the rampart... just one of the all time great Medieval battles ever made for TV.

Also the insanity of rooting for the Vikings in this circumstance (what did the French do to cause this siege?  NOTHING!  Credit Hirst for making us root for the bad guys ala Vader at the end of Rogue One.) 

re: originality/defying expectations versus crowd pleasing... you just can't win in a world of critics who scream when you don't give them what they predict,  or they scream fan service or plot armor when you do. 

 

 

 

[Corvinus85]

23 minutes ago, generalzod said:

Quick response on Battle of the Bastards... Jon Snow's lack of helmet is an issue on Medieval shows.  The problem as a drama is seeing facial reactions and being able to readily identify the hero in the chaos of a fight scene.  Plus actors want their face seen generally.  Pick your poison.  

re: originality/defying expectations versus crowd pleasing... you just can't win in a world of critics who scream when you don't give them what they predict,  or they scream fan service or plot armor when you do. 

Combining these two issues, I would say an original approach to film making for a medieval period piece would be to show battles more realistically. Braveheart and other films of the 90s introduced the gritty, bloody aspect of medieval warfare, but still kept the formula of armies clashing into each other like a bunch of drunken cattle, with little in the way of cohesiveness, as well as letting actors' heads be exposed for comfort and better camera angles. In the movie 300 my favorite part is the brief phalanx combat when the Spartans are actually using that formation to great effect, but then it quickly devolves into Leonidas and company becoming veritable terminators. 

So perhaps it's time to change up the formula again. That's why I really enjoyed the battle in The Last Kingdom that strove to show real shield wall battles, even though that one was also spoiled at the end by Uthred's acrobatics. (And Uthred wearing his piece of shit garment, despite being gifted with a quality coat of mail and helmet)

And I do appreciate in Vikings that most actors were made to use shields, since the shield was such an important piece of a warrior's equipment. In Game of Thrones there is a serious lack of shields, which unlike helmets certainly don't restrict the face, and Vikings has shown that actors can be trained to use shields effectively.

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

Combining these two issues, I would say an original approach to film making for a medieval period piece would be to show battles more realistically. Braveheart and other films of the 90s introduced the gritty, bloody aspect of medieval warfare, but still kept the formula of armies clashing into each other like a bunch of drunken cattle, with little in the way of cohesiveness, as well as letting actors' heads be exposed for comfort and better camera angles. In the movie 300 my favorite part is the brief phalanx combat when the Spartans are actually using that formation to great effect, but then it quickly devolves into Leonidas and company becoming veritable terminators. 

So perhaps it's time to change up the formula again. That's why I really enjoyed the battle in The Last Kingdom that strove to show real shield wall battles, even though that one was also spoiled at the end by Uthred's acrobatics. (And Uthred wearing his piece of shit garment, despite being gifted with a quality coat of mail and helmet)

And I do appreciate in Vikings that most actors were made to use shields, since the shield was such an important piece of a warrior's equipment. In Game of Thrones there is a serious lack of shields, which unlike helmets certainly don't restrict the face, and Vikings has shown that actors can be trained to use shields effectively.

Vikings has a very strange absence of helmets among the Norse, really. It is totally okay if not everyone has a one, what with armies consisting of people showing up with their own weapons and armor as opposed to being equipped by a central government, but as far as I know we've almost never seen a single viking wearing one in the show. Not even among kings, jarls, or their retinues of professional warriors. This is an especially puzzling decision by the showmakers when you consider how unique and cool looking helmets the real Norse actually had, like these modern reconstructions of archaeological finds: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/42/6b/3b/426b3b3d84d259becf94ba39b15dad2f.jpg 

http://www.thorkil.pl/platnerstwo/helmy/wczesne/53.jpg 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c3/ae/b1/c3aeb1b5a6c09e7349f5f16ef5865516.jpg 

This is what you'd expect members of the elite like Ragnar, Rollo, Bjorn etc to wear, along with actual armor and proper looking clothes, not some rags and leather scraps. 

Actually, if you fight with a large shield like the vikings did then a helmet is a lot more important to own than other pieces of armor, considering that the rest of the vital parts of your body will be protected by your shield anyway.

[generalzod]

Those helmets (especially the first two), while cool, make my point that they completely obscure the actor's face.  No emotion can be conveyed.  I think if Travis Fimmel wore them in battle scenes it would be a lot less cool because we couldn't  see his face as he looks at Paris, reacts to Rollo, dodges spears, intimidates the Saxons.

a helmet on Ragnar would RUIN this dramatic scene:

 

Also, what era are they from? Vikings takes place in the 800s/9th century AD.  That metal work looks pretty elaborate 

 

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, generalzod said:

Those helmets (especially the first two), while cool, make my point that they completely obscure the actor's face.  No emotion can be conveyed.  I think if Travis Fimmel wore them in battle scenes it would be a lot less cool because we couldn't  see his face as he looks at Paris, reacts to Rollo, dodges spears, intimidates the Saxons.

a helmet on Ragnar would RUIN this dramatic scene:

 

Also, what era are they from? Vikings takes place in the 800s/9th century AD.  That metal work looks pretty elaborate 

 

There is plenty of historical evidence of highly elaborate helmets from different time periods, including that one. Those helms have the spangenhelm design, common in that time period in northern Europe.

But I want to discuss with you something else. In the new Alien thread, you had this to say about Kingdom of Heaven.

Quote

Kingdom of Heaven.  Asstacular.  From Orlando Bloom miscast and sporting an anachronistic post modern agenda...All the Christians in the Holy Land are evil and incompetent except for two...The worst kind of liberal guilt that didn't want to deal with any complexity whatsoever.  Plus, just an incomprehensible story.  A deserved flop despite some great location, costume and production design.  My complaints summed up here:

 

You agree with History Buffs' criticism (and so do I). But a lot of that criticism could also be applied to Vkings, yet you seem not interested in that based on all the arguments you've made. So could it be that KoH just rubbed you the wrong way, but Vikings didn't. Maybe because of the quality of the first 2 seasons, the show can do no wrong in your eyes now? I am curious to know.

On the subject of helmets, again, in KoH they made effective use of the simple open faced helm with nasal guard, and mail coifs. Vikings could have that, too, and Travis would still be able to show his awesome facial expressions. I think it's more because of all those braids that their faces that they don't wear helmets. 

[generalzod]

If you look at the French red shirts in the clip, good luck seeing their faces with the nose guards.  The nose guards don't really work on film.

re: Vikings vs. Kingdom of Heaven.. we know quite a lot of that period of the prelude to the third Crusade.  Christian chroniclers like William of Tyre wrote contemporaneously with those times... And what he wrote about the Christians of the First crusade was as unflattering as it was ballsy and heroic.  Baldwin and Godfrey (from the first Crusade) didn't have the moral code of Richard the Lionhearted (of the third Crusade).  KOH  also suffers from liberal white guilt that paints any foreign group as uniformly spiritual and dignified warriors when the Arabs and Mamluks had no shortage of atrocities on their side too.   

re the Vikings... the only contemporaneous writings from the 800s  are Saxon chronicles... Vikings didnt even put pen to parchment until well after 200 years after the events of Vikings, and when they did the sagas were the equivalent of Greek Myths...Murderous cows, giant snakes, magical pants, etc.  So how do you balance "historical bias" of the Saxons against non existant contemporaneous writings?  How can you take anything in the sagas as factual?  Plus there's just tons we don't know from that era unless we trust the factually challenged  Sagas, starting with was Ragnar even a real person?

Kingdom of Heaven depicts a well chronicled era about which much is known about the players and actions involved and shits on it with a contemporary morality and "White Christians are all bad" politics.  I would have been fine if the white Christians were at least complex, compelling villains but Ridley Scott couldn't be bothered. 

Vikings, from the second it started with visions of Odin, made it clear it was based on the Sagas, like adapting the Iliad and the odyssey.  (There was a Troy but was there really a Trojan War with players like Paris and Achilles?)  The other thing made clear from the outset is Vikings was compressing 200 years of Viking history into a couple of generations, as exemplified by Ragnar and Rollo even being brothers... conflating Bjorn's coffin trick in Sicily and giving it to Ragnar, putting Odo at the first battle of Paris, etc.  

So since Vikings is adapting the factually questionable Sagas in a grounded way, and it's about an era about which much is unknown,   I hold it to a different standard.      Two different stories trying to do two different things with one having much less factually known than the other. Vikings succeeds at grounding the tales in the Sagas, melding them to History, and compressing the big events of the Viking age into a couple generations.  The actions, attitudes towards religion, etc. are all era appropriate in Vikings and both heroes and villains are complex/dimensional .  There are many cases where characters are villains one season and heroic the next.

Kingdom of Heaven purports to tell the story of the fall of Jerusalem  just before the Third Crusade with mustache twirling Christian villains, a hero with modern attitudes, pandering and condescending to Muslims that all their characters are honorable and wonderful, and there's no mythology or visions to bend reality.  This is how Ridley Scott sees the fall of Jerusalem about which much is factually known and he still gets it wrong, but even if you ignore the real history, ok fine, it's bad cookie cutter drama that rings false.  That's why the film was a financial and critical failure despite great costumes and set design and epic battle scenes. 

But to compare apples to apples, Vikings has characters you care about and feels fresh and feels true to its era , Kingdom of Heaven has nobody you care about and feels cookie cutter and false to its era. 

[Bennis of the Brown Shield]

11 hours ago, generalzod said:

Those helmets (especially the first two), while cool, make my point that they completely obscure the actor's face.  No emotion can be conveyed.  I think if Travis Fimmel wore them in battle scenes it would be a lot less cool because we couldn't  see his face as he looks at Paris, reacts to Rollo, dodges spears, intimidates the Saxons.

a helmet on Ragnar would RUIN this dramatic scene:

 

Also, what era are they from? Vikings takes place in the 800s/9th century AD.  That metal work looks pretty elaborate 

 

The first one yes, but with the other ones you can at least see the eyes and mouth, which are the most important parts of the face for conveying emotions. I would also say that even fully enclosed helmets can be made to work in television, providing they look cool and unique. Look at Darth Vader for example.

The reconstructions I linked are based on helmets from boat graves near Uppsala in Sweden, dating from the 600-700's AD. 

Here are some more: 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fb/99/88/fb99889865525af638a5acbc00f244ea.jpg 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/77/d3/49/77d349b45fb916f904c6e7fcca76abca.jpg 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/3f/f0/fa/3ff0fa1c866b7b0db117c466dfef3608.jpg

http://pre00.deviantart.net/b61e/th/pre/i/2012/055/2/5/viking_helmet___interpretation_by_vrin_thomas-d4qvjyj.jpg 

Note that although they share some common characteristics, none of the helmets found is identical to another. So the costume designers would still have had a lot of freedom in this regard had they chosen to go down that path, instead of the leatherman one. 

 

[generalzod]

Most pirated TV shows:

http://culturess.com/2016/12/27/official-game-thrones-still-pirated-show-ever/

 

GOT # 1

Vikings # 7

 

 

[generalzod]

Was expecting it, but #gutted...

[Astromech]

Ragnar is a champ! Can't wait to see the rest of the season play out. Besides the new character who looks like Ecbert and the happenings in Kattegat, I really enjoyed this  episode. However, the show is strongest when it focuses on Ragnar.

[Corvinus85]

A much better episode than what we've had so far in 4B. I am almost willing to forgive how it got to here thanks to Ragnar's final scenes. Fimmel's performance was exquisite, the music was haunting and great, and I also liked the performance of the actor who plays Aella.

I enjoyed the chess scene between Alfred and Ivar, as well. 

But looking forward to next episode because we'll finally see Bjorn again, and he looks like he'll be fighting some Muslims. And Ivar will probably kill Lagertha.

And a small bonus: the Northrumbians, at least, seemed to remember in what century they lived, and wore era appropriate helmets. Here's hoping  the West Saxons follow suit.

[Nictarion]

 

I thought they nailed Ragnar's death. Despite some of the later seasons missteps (4A), seeing some of those flashbacks reminded me how much I loved this show in the earlier seasons. I thought the music was on point in his final scene too. Travis Fimmel will be sorely missed.

[Arkash]

May you drink in Valhalla your majesty.

Or Heaven, if you'd prefer...

Yeah, in the end, both are ridiculous, and wherever you are, we'll remember you. 

Oh, and Ubbe looks a hell lot like younger Ragnar ! 

[SpaceChampion]

What was the point of that random shot of that one-eyed guy at the end?  Who was that supposed to be?

[generalzod]

18 minutes ago, SpaceChampion said:

What was the point of that random shot of that one-eyed guy at the end?  Who was that supposed to be?

Odin I think... but I need to rewatch it before saying definitively 

[Veltigar]

I have taken the liberty to start a new thread