vikings! on the history channel? what the hell?

[Drowned Crow]

He's not some moustache twirling villain.

His moustache twirliness is, it seems to me, the biggest problem with the show. In only three episodes, he's already committed several acts that don't really make any sense and seem to have been included only to demonstrate how evil he is. As a result, he mainly comes across as stupid and vicious which doesn't really make for a satisfying antagonist.

[Arthmail]

His moustache twirliness is, it seems to me, the biggest problem with the show. In only three episodes, he's already committed several acts that don't really make any sense and seem to have been included only to demonstrate how evil he is. As a result, he mainly comes across as stupid and vicious which doesn't really make for a satisfying antagonist.

Not really. It shows to me he's an old man afraid of change, afraid of losing his power. He is not the man to take his people forward, and i think he's grasping at straws. Had there been no Ragnar, he would likely continue his days as lord and master of his lands and not have a problem with his actions.

[I do not sew]

The whole tricking his henchman into trying to sleep with his wife thing served absolutely no purpose. Really felt out of place.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

He's a jarl, not an absolute monarch. My impression of that period of history is that a chieftain couldn't get away with randomly shoving blacksmiths heads into the fire.

[Arthmail]

He's a jarl, not an absolute monarch. My impression of that period of history is that a chieftain couldn't get away with randomly shoving blacksmiths heads into the fire.

I think for the moment he has the men, however. No one has bothered to gather the men to oppose him.

Part of me did think that tricking his man into sleeping with his wife was pretty cheap, and pointless, and then i thought of the shit that Saddam Husseins sons did. And i shrugged because some people are just fucked up.

[Gus]

I like the show but I think the story is too thin so far. I hope the scope expands to England at some point or they manage to flesh out the Scandinavian parts in the following episodes.

It should be Norway since they are traveling straight east with the navigation device and Lindisfarne is in northern England. Besides we saw fjords and that means Norway. If they traveled from Denmark bit would have made more sense to follow land and go by the coast to England and cross the channel later.

[Howdyphillip]

I like the show but I think the story is too thin so far. I hope the scope expands to England at some point or they manage to flesh out the Scandinavian parts in the following episodes.

It should be Norway since they are traveling straight east with the navigation device and Lindisfarne is in northern England. Besides we saw fjords and that means Norway. If they traveled from Denmark bit would have made more sense to follow land and go by the coast to England and cross the channel later.

(discussion) Ragnar Lodbrok and his sons were Danes... Historically. They sailed from Denmark. (/discussion)

[sToNED_CAT]

He's a jarl, not an absolute monarch. My impression of that period of history is that a chieftain couldn't get away with randomly shoving blacksmiths heads into the fire.

His behavior is not even consistent within the show. Remember the trial in first episode? When all men are voting and the sentence must be unanimous? And episode later he can simply order the guy killed and nobody seems to care?

[sToNED_CAT]

It should be Norway since they are traveling straight east with the navigation device and Lindisfarne is in northern England. Besides we saw fjords and that means Norway. If they traveled from Denmark bit would have made more sense to follow land and go by the coast to England and cross the channel later.

Like said above he was a Dane. They are showing fjords, because those are associated with Vikings in peoples minds. And honestly I like it more this way, the landscape looks amazing.

But the geography in this show doesn't make sense, I highly doubt Norwegians did much raiding to the east that was Swedish area of conquest. Not to mention the fact that earl doesn't even believe there are lands to the West, which is frankly laughable. Even if the Vikings were unable to navigate open seas, they would be able to sail to Britain and France by "hugging" the coast.

[Reposado]

It should be Norway since they are traveling straight east with the navigation device and Lindisfarne is in northern England. Besides we saw fjords and that means Norway. If they traveled from Denmark bit would have made more sense to follow land and go by the coast to England and cross the channel later.

ah, definitely making it seem that way. going by the show's evidence, it's circumstantially norway. by history, its denmark. i think they have lattitude to go either way at this point

Like said above he was a Dane. They are showing fjords, because those are associated with Vikings in peoples minds. And honestly I like it more this way, the landscape looks amazing.

But the geography in this show doesn't make sense, I highly doubt Norwegians did much raiding to the east that was Swedish area of conquest. Not to mention the fact that earl doesn't even believe there are lands to the West, which is frankly laughable. Even if the Vikings were unable to navigate open seas, they would be able to sail to Britain and France by "hugging" the coast.

sure, and they should definitely be aware that it exists, as they apparently already know what its called, and shoudl probably be aware that the germanic tribes had raided there for centuries..

so like is said, they are playing a little loose with history. doesnt matter to me, if that looseness makes it a better drama. so far i think it has

[Gus]

I was going on what the show tries to tell us. It makes some sence that Norwegian Vikings would show up in northern England once they learned how to navigate the north sea. In history was even Ragnar credited with the Lindisfarne attack? I think the show is trying to put Ragnar behind most things that the Vikings did collectively during the early viking period. From just some fast googling Ragnar seems to have hit south England and France mostly which would make a lot more sense from a Danish perspective.

[Drowned Crow]

Not really. It shows to me he's an old man afraid of change, afraid of losing his power. He is not the man to take his people forward, and i think he's grasping at straws. Had there been no Ragnar, he would likely continue his days as lord and master of his lands and not have a problem with his actions.

The fucking spoiler tags won't work for some reason, so never mind.

[MisterOJ]

I'm enjoying the show so far, but I have a request for this thread:

Can talk about episodes that have not been broadcast on television be put in spoiler tags?

Thanks!

[EnergeticCrab]

Totally capitalizing on GOT's aesthetic and imagery but seems really cool. Good to know people are watching it and that it's not terrible.

[Ran]

It's ... okay. Thin story, poor pacing, don't like the schizophrenic scoring, but some entertaining actors and set pieces. It's nearer to Spartacus than to Game of Thrones -- smaller scope, smaller cast, smaller production. Travis Fimmel is indeed good. Gustaf Skarsgård is pretty terrific at playing a madman. Byrne... feels like a paycheck job for him, IMO.

[sToNED_CAT]

So what was the deal with murdering a random kid in the third episode? Why take a random kid as a hostage for Ragnar's good behavior in the first place? Why murder him when multiple witnesses saw him being led away by that henchman? If he wanted that buried treasure to be a secret, why not kill the henchman as well? And if he trusts the henchman, why not have him dig the hole by himself? Was the help of a skinny 13 year old really essential for digging a small hole?

Yeah that was strange. Like the seduction of wife it seemed to serve no purpose just to remind the audience that earl is bad guy. The writing in this show isn't very good, shame, because it could have been much better.

Another weak/illogical point was when they tried to convince the priest to do 3some with them :). I highly doubt Vikings were THAT sexually liberal (to offer a wife to slave), and even if they were, it was pretty inconsistent with Lagertha behavior towards Rollo in previous episode.

[Ravenhair]

I watched the first episode, and I was not too enthralled with it. I DVRd the second episode, so I'm willing to give it another chance, but powerwatching Louie has proven to be a distraction.

[I do not sew]

It's ... okay. Thin story, poor pacing, don't like the schizophrenic scoring, but some entertaining actors and set pieces. It's nearer to Spartacus than to Game of Thrones -- smaller scope, smaller cast, smaller production. Travis Fimmel is indeed good. Gustaf Skarsgård is pretty terrific at playing a madman. Byrne... feels like a paycheck job for him, IMO.

How do you feel about seeing Vlad Kulich in full viking gear? Does it inspire a Vic Greyjoy endorsement?

[Arthmail]

Firstly, we aren't all in the same region, so how about you keep your spoiler mouth shut, as i don't have access to the third episode.

I'm confused by the notion of the plot being thin. I mean, its centered around one community of people. There is one lord and a bunch of farmers and fisherman. This is not GOT, where everyone is made lord of this or that and scheming in every way possible. Nor is there multiple continents. The main arc follows one guy and those around him, with one enemy facing him - for the moment. I'd also like to point out that this show has nowhere the funding that HBO has put into GOT, so perhaps with more money they could do more in terms of enemies.

Again, i find Byrne to be a perfectly suitable bad guy. The story is not really about him, but you can see that his respect for tradition is torn away as he feels that his power base is eroding.

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.

Meh. I like it, and i'll take it over GOT. I'm mostly done with that story in any case, what with Martin deciding to do whatever it is he does when he's letting the story flounder.

Lastly, i like that the family life is presented as normal in the series.

[rocksniffer]

my 2 cents...i like it, agreed it isn't as broad and far reaching as GoT but it tells a good story with descent actors and action...

...so i'm with the Merc Chef let us plunder and sings the songs of great men...I can go shirtless, though i've got to much cajun indian to have a beard...and my war hammer is really a Kama from the karate princes...but it will get the job done... :smoking: