What's new
By:

Vikings TV series.

I am working my way through season 3. Season 4 is on TV now and they have ordered season 5. This is such a great look into the treachery and intrigue of the time, as well as the brutality. They get the timing of somethings wrong in history, but the battles and the weapons, armor, methods, etc. all are pretty spot on. I actually prefer this to GoT, but of course I binge read all 5 GoT before watching any of the episodes and found them lacking to the source material. Vikings seems more real, and is actually fairly true to the time period even though it isn't meant to be a perfect representation of that period of our world's history. I especially like how they handle the different languages, using subtitles long enough that you know they are speaking a foreign language and then switching to english while maintaining a slight accent of the language they were speaking before switching to english so you can tell who is from where. That part is exceptionally well done. And I think the acting in Vikings is better than GoT overall. The dude that plays Ragnar is fantastic. Love the series. This is one I will probably buy.

Here is a snippet I particularly liked that I think really summed up the vikings in a way. This is a scene where the french have captured a viking earl and are goinng to behead him, but he turns the tables. It will probably be redacted by the modstapo but hopefully a few see it before that happens. If not search youtube for "vikings 3x09 hold my hair".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsiXZlv3vKw
 
Good show, not at the level of Game of Thrones or Spartacus but still very decent. Some major holes in historical and geographical aspects can be ignored if you are not from Eastern/Northern Europe.
 
MVP said:
Good show, not at the level of Game of Thrones or Spartacus but still very decent. Some major holes in historical and geographical aspects can be ignored if you are not from Eastern/Northern Europe.
Click to expand...

Actually geographically they are spot on. And historically their biggest mistakes are based on timeline and mythology, and are actually more about poetic license necessary to tell the story. If you read anything about the show you'll find out they use all kinds of Viking and European history experts to help get things right. The events actually happened and most of the characters are historically accurate.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Actually geographically they are spot on. And historically their biggest mistakes are based on timeline and mythology, and are actually more about poetic license necessary to tell the story. If you read anything about the show you'll find out they use all kinds of Viking and European history experts to help get things right. The events actually happened and most of the characters are historically accurate.
Click to expand...

Few things I spotted - they went to Gotland on horses. Gotland is an island. They never showed them sailing there. When they talk about raiding Russians in the east...there was no Russia east from Scandinavia in 790.
 
MVP said:
Few things I spotted - they went to Gotland on horses. Gotland is an island. They never showed them sailing there. When they talk about raiding Russians in the east...there was no Russia east from Scandinavia in 790.
Click to expand...

So incredibly minor things that really have very little to do with the overarching story.
 
LogGrad98 said:
So incredibly minor things that really have very little to do with the overarching story.
Click to expand...

I agree. Especially for N.American viewers it makes no difference. But for me it is easy to pick up those minir things especially when you visited those lands they mention in the show and they do look a bit different. It was filmed in Canada and Ireland right?
 
MVP said:
I agree. Especially for N.American viewers it makes no difference. But for me it is easy to pick up those minir things especially when you visited those lands they mention in the show and they do look a bit different. It was filmed in Canada and Ireland right?
Click to expand...

I think so. I know they work hard to make it authentic. For example they took the entire cast and crew to the actual location of the monastery the Vikings first raided in England before they shot the scene for the show.

But it's a TV show. You cannot expect every single detail to be perfect especially considering much of viking history is pieced together since they kept very few written records.
 
So I finished all 4 seasons and appears that 5th season is premiering on November 29.

Not sure it is going to be that interesting without Ragnar, somehow all of his sons are quite boring - they trying to focus around Ivar but it just seems so unreal that crippled boy would be leading ruthless vikings where sheer power and strength is so valued. Loved it how at the end of it's life Ragnar went all in agnostic and gave up on both pagan and christian gods. King Eqbert even before death found a way to screw vikings over lol, what a snake:)
 
MVP said:
So I finished all 4 seasons and appears that 5th season is premiering on November 29.

Not sure it is going to be that interesting without Ragnar, somehow all of his sons are quite boring - they trying to focus around Ivar but it just seems so unreal that crippled boy would be leading ruthless vikings where sheer power and strength is so valued. Loved it how at the end of it's life Ragnar went all in agnostic and gave up on both pagan and christian gods. King Eqbert even before death found a way to screw vikings over lol, what a snake:)
Click to expand...

Ivar the Boneless is a real figure from history, the show condenses a whole bunch of Viking history into their narrative, I like vikings a lot but I reckon the last kingdom is better.
 
Rubashov said:
Ivar the Boneless is a real figure from history, the show condenses a whole bunch of Viking history into their narrative, I like vikings a lot but I reckon the last kingdom is better.
Click to expand...

I am nor arguing he was real...but Boneless does not mean he was paralysed from the waist down. Could have had Ehler-Danlos syndrome.
 
MVP said:
I am nor arguing he was real...but Boneless does not mean he was paralysed from the waist down. Could have had Ehler-Danlos syndrome.
Click to expand...


I believe this is the hypothesis that has been put forward.
 
I quit Vikings in season 4. Last Kingdom looks better but it may go Vikings route and get worse every season.
 
MVP said:
I am nor arguing he was real...but Boneless does not mean he was paralysed from the waist down. Could have had Ehler-Danlos syndrome.
Click to expand...

Rubashov said:
I believe this is the hypothesis that has been put forward.
Click to expand...

There are several theories as to why he is called the boneless, this is one. The problem is that most accounts mention in some way that it mostly affected his legs, but that otherwise he was fully fucntioning, so Ehler_Danlos is probably not the case since it would affect all joints and make it tough for him to fight at all. Another is that he was truly crippled as depicted in the show and compensated by being a fierce fighter and commander. Everything I have read about him showed him being very clever, a strong tactician, and a fearless and brutal fighter. My personal opinion is the translation is wrong and that the idea that he was called "the hated" in latin was mis-translated into "boneless", although the sagas do generally make mention of the fact that he had some disability on some level. It is interesting stuff for sure.

It also has to be taken into account that this depiction comes more from the sagas than the historical accounts, which do not really make mention of this part of his character.

Personally I have liked Vikings. For what they have tried to do they are staying as true to the sagas as they can while also telling a reasonably good story in a shortened time-frame to a largely clueless audience. I think to go this justice would really be 1) very difficult given the time constraints and 2) really kind of boring since mostly viking life was like ours, mundane except when exciting things happened. To be able to bring us the exciting parts in a large enough dose they have to take poetic license and for me it works, better than last kingdom. Plus Lagartha is crazy hot.
 
I am excited for the 5th season. I do think that Ragnar was quite the cult of personality who carried the show, but I think if they do this right Ivar's story or even Bjorn Ironside's story could be followed with some success. I have liked Bjorn more and more as the series progressed. I think the actor is getting more comfortable in the role and it shows in better performances. There is still a lot they can cover but I think they will switch it to follow Ivar and maybe end the series with his death and burial and the supposed curse he placed on England as a result. Would be fitting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top