On April 24 2013 12:35 Aegon I wrote: The issue is, is killing Leif authentic to the historical period of the Vikings in the show, or just a plot device? Honestly no Earl is going to risk his only son on such a pilgrimage without some spiritual restrictions on killing the son's of Earls. That would have taken one line by a priest of the Norse gods.
It's a great show. Stupid to kill Leif though. Made me angry. It would have been easy enough to kill a nonname nonessential character rather than him. It still would have been as meaningful. Wasn't it weird for there not to be even the slightest issue with Ragnar's brother and the baptism? I fully expected the priests to not allow him to eat the mushrooms or something as a sign of displeasure. Surely the Seer would have been honor bound to tell them in the Viking's holy place?
I feel like to the Viking any other religion IS just a joke. Flocki took it as an offense because he's the quintessential Viking, of the strongest faith. It's why he was the first seen to go for the sacrafice, but was stopped by the woman. I feel like viking of Flocki's and Leif's faith weren't the most common. Not uncommon, but not the norm either.
On April 22 2013 22:08 sereniity wrote: Just came to check this thread again and lold at how aggressive people were about my post... what the fuck is your problem? No I didn't understand that was the case, and nor do I see how it was obvious (everyone I know that watch the series wondered the same thing). I've never seen it in another movie/series before, maybe that's why I didn't see it. Do you have to get butthurt over that?
This just reminds me of why I stopped coming to this forum in the first place, people are so stuck up.
This is the dumbest complaint I've ever heard. It's entirely obvious that when the Vikings are speaking English back in Scandinavia, they aren't literally speaking "English" in-character.
If someone is too stupid to realize how this simple mechanic works, that's their loss. It's definitely not a fault of the shows. It's a lot better than just having a third of the show in subtitles to babysit the audience members incapable of applying a little common sense to different contexts.
just a perfect example of how passive-aggressive people are here... yeah man I must be incapable of applying common sense, I'm such a retard. Or perhaps I just don't live in America, you know here in Sweden we don't "Americanize" every fucking movie to our own language.
inb4 a bunch of Scandinavians jump in and say "herp derp i understood it just perfectly" yeah well congratufuckinglations to you then
How aggressive people are about your post? Seriously? You made a claim that you didn't understand something, hence it made no sense. Unfortunately for you, it made perfect sense and everyone else here obviously understood what was going on. How can you honestly say everyone else sounded butthurt when you were the one nitpicking about something completely retarded?
The stupidity of your post had little to do with "Americanizaiton" of entertainment to your own language. It had everything to do with your complaint that it was too hard to understand that the English and Vikings were speaking different languages because for the majority of the show they both spoke "English" unless they were in each others presence. I mean, I might be going out on a limb here, but if this should aired in your country, are you seriously going to argue that they would have spoken in Old Nordic with modern Swedish subtitles? I might be oblivious to other cultures here, but how is adapting film, music, etc entertainment to your own countries primary spoken language labeled as "Americanization". It seems like a universal trend that any culture wouldn't be faulted for taking part in. That goes without saying, there is no fault in doing the contrary, as you seem to imply your country always does (which don't take offense to this, but I highly doubt you're being honest here - maybe another Swede can correct me here), and adapt any fictional setting with all characters purely speaking the language within the story and adding subtitles so the audience understands.
No one is making fun of you for lacking knowledge because it isn't even necessarily a matter of knowledge or lack-there-of, it's a matter of common sense and some very basic logical deductions that even if you didn't know these two groups historically spoke different languages, you could deduce it from various scenes in the show. The worst part about your post is how hypocritical you are being in accusing everyone of being "aggressive" and "stuck up", especially when your default go-to position when faced with something you don't understand is "it doesn't make sense". I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but I was shocked that you were legitimately complaining about that of all things.
On April 24 2013 02:42 Geo.Rion wrote: I enjoy this show very much, though i'd like if somebody would explain me a couple of things>
1. After Ragnar's trial, when he was found innocent, what was that ambush about at the inn? They stab the huge blond warrior than they enter the inn and get their asses kicked. Then, nothing happens for a while. The Arl just sent a meek assasination attempt and nobody gave a crap, not even he apparently? This leads to my next question
2. After a few, i guess weeks, of silence, the Arl arrives at where Ragnar lived and starts butchering the people. WTF? If i understood correctly, at that point he had a farm, not a village. Dindt all those men belong to the Arl rather than Ragnar? And leading up to this it seemed that the vikings are obiding their own laws by the book, and than just a random assasination attempt and a slaughter of a village, and nobody cares?
3. How could 3 ship worth of viking which even by optimistic estimation is less than 100 men hoped to beat the King of Northumbria? If it was Spartacus i wouldnt even ask, but again, till that point it seemed to me, that it's fairly realistic, and it's not 1 viking is worth 10 of anything so the odds are actually in our favor. Why not say it was 10 ships? No need to show that many, just imply.
4. Did the vikings of old really sacrifice their own warriors like goats to the gods?
2. I don't know how accurate this is, but I was under the impression that Ragnar was a lesser vassal/land owner of the Earl?/Arl to whom he swore allegience. This would mean that while all of those people were indirectly the Earl's people via "vassals of my vassal", they were first and foremost Ragnar's direct subjects.
3. It's probably a budget constraint. I'm guessing that the King of Northumbria could muster larger armies than a couple dozen troops as well.
I'm pretty glad they've renewed this for a second season of 10 episodes though. This is way better than the other shit on the History Channel and the optimist in me wants to believe it could be a step in the right direction for History channel actually becoming about history again.
I didn't like that Leif died but the seer said that to make up for the corrupted sacrifice one of their group had to be it, to me he implied it had to be someone in that room, and they had to volunteer immediately otherwise everyone was sacrificed. Otherwise it seems like ragnar would have just gone and got a peasant or something.
On April 22 2013 22:08 sereniity wrote: Just came to check this thread again and lold at how aggressive people were about my post... what the fuck is your problem? No I didn't understand that was the case, and nor do I see how it was obvious (everyone I know that watch the series wondered the same thing). I've never seen it in another movie/series before, maybe that's why I didn't see it. Do you have to get butthurt over that?
This just reminds me of why I stopped coming to this forum in the first place, people are so stuck up.
This is the dumbest complaint I've ever heard. It's entirely obvious that when the Vikings are speaking English back in Scandinavia, they aren't literally speaking "English" in-character.
If someone is too stupid to realize how this simple mechanic works, that's their loss. It's definitely not a fault of the shows. It's a lot better than just having a third of the show in subtitles to babysit the audience members incapable of applying a little common sense to different contexts.
just a perfect example of how passive-aggressive people are here... yeah man I must be incapable of applying common sense, I'm such a retard. Or perhaps I just don't live in America, you know here in Sweden we don't "Americanize" every fucking movie to our own language.
inb4 a bunch of Scandinavians jump in and say "herp derp i understood it just perfectly" yeah well congratufuckinglations to you then
How aggressive people are about your post? Seriously? You made a claim that you didn't understand something, hence it made no sense. Unfortunately for you, it made perfect sense and everyone else here obviously understood what was going on. How can you honestly say everyone else sounded butthurt when you were the one nitpicking about something completely retarded?
" viewed Ragnar's translation to his people as part of an act. They seem to genuinely enjoy portraying themselves as heathen savages to the English people (like the dinner scene with the king). Ragnar translating the English to his men seems to serve 2 purposes. It perpetuates the English's stereotype of the northmen as uneducated heathen savages, and paints Ragnar as an educated heathen savage lol. " ^a quote from another person in this thread
obviously it didn't make sense to everybody else, the reason I asked the question in the first place is because a bunch of other irl friends asked me the same question. I don't see how it's "nitpicking about something completely retarded", but hey, that's just like your opinion man.
The stupidity of your post had little to do with "Americanizaiton" of entertainment to your own language. It had everything to do with your complaint that it was too hard to understand that the English and Vikings were speaking different languages because for the majority of the show they both spoke "English" unless they were in each others presence. I mean, I might be going out on a limb here, but if this should aired in your country, are you seriously going to argue that they would have spoken in Old Nordic with modern Swedish subtitles? I might be oblivious to other cultures here, but how is adapting film, music, etc entertainment to your own countries primary spoken language labeled as "Americanization". It seems like a universal trend that any culture wouldn't be faulted for taking part in. That goes without saying, there is no fault in doing the contrary, as you seem to imply your country always does (which don't take offense to this, but I highly doubt you're being honest here - maybe another Swede can correct me here), and adapt any fictional setting with all characters purely speaking the language within the story and adding subtitles so the audience understands.
What I meant with the americanization part is that America often "Americanizes" popular movies (for example, the french movie The Intouchables, or hey, even our swedish movie The girl with the dragon tattoo). Since America does that, it's no surprise that you've encountered this thing before (the double language thingy) while I, a Swedish person, hasn't. Is it weird that it makes no sense to me when I've never encountered it before?
anyway u didn't understand what I meant with the americanization part? wow man ur such a total retard everybody else understood it hurr durr
No one is making fun of you for lacking knowledge because it isn't even necessarily a matter of knowledge or lack-there-of, it's a matter of common sense and some very basic logical deductions that even if you didn't know these two groups historically spoke different languages, you could deduce it from various scenes in the show.
And yes, here we go again. Yeah ofcourse I'm unable to apply uncommon sense, I must be such a retard etc.
The worst part about your post is how hypocritical you are being in accusing everyone of being "aggressive" and "stuck up", especially when your default go-to position when faced with something you don't understand is "it doesn't make sense". I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but I was shocked that you were legitimately complaining about that of all things.
Could you please explain to me how it's aggressive and stuck-up to think that something doesn't make sense? Because last time I checked, people being able to speak a language fluently one scene and not being able to the next scene does not make sense. Does it make sense from a production point of view? Yes I guess so, however as I've never seen this before, it didn't make sense at all to me.
Anyway, I really like this show ! Ragnar is very badass and it gives me goosebumps anytime I realize the storyline is following an historic line of events (Go go raid Frankia and Britain !)
The stupidity of your post had little to do with "Americanizaiton" of entertainment to your own language. It had everything to do with your complaint that it was too hard to understand that the English and Vikings were speaking different languages because for the majority of the show they both spoke "English" unless they were in each others presence. I mean, I might be going out on a limb here, but if this should aired in your country, are you seriously going to argue that they would have spoken in Old Nordic with modern Swedish subtitles? I might be oblivious to other cultures here, but how is adapting film, music, etc entertainment to your own countries primary spoken language labeled as "Americanization". It seems like a universal trend that any culture wouldn't be faulted for taking part in. That goes without saying, there is no fault in doing the contrary, as you seem to imply your country always does (which don't take offense to this, but I highly doubt you're being honest here - maybe another Swede can correct me here), and adapt any fictional setting with all characters purely speaking the language within the story and adding subtitles so the audience understands.
What I meant with the americanization part is that America often "Americanizes" popular movies (for example, the french movie The Intouchables, or hey, even our swedish movie The girl with the dragon tattoo). Since America does that, it's no surprise that you've encountered this thing before (the double language thingy) while I, a Swedish person, hasn't. Is it weird that it makes no sense to me when I've never encountered it before?
anyway u didn't understand what I meant with the americanization part? wow man ur such a total retard everybody else understood it hurr durr
You didn't address my concerns about this being a purely American phenomena at all.
The worst part about your post is how hypocritical you are being in accusing everyone of being "aggressive" and "stuck up", especially when your default go-to position when faced with something you don't understand is "it doesn't make sense". I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but I was shocked that you were legitimately complaining about that of all things.
Could you please explain to me how it's aggressive and stuck-up to think that something doesn't make sense? Because last time I checked, people being able to speak a language fluently one scene and not being able to the next scene does not make sense. Does it make sense from a production point of view? Yes I guess so, however as I've never seen this before, it didn't make sense at all to me.
You're being aggressive by exploding at everyone. Looking back on the initial responses to your confusion, I was really the only rude response in the entire batch. Everyone else was completely civil in their responses. Then you say things like
"What the fuck is your problem?", "Do you get butthurt over that?", and "just a perfect example of how passive aggressive people here are" at the entire collective.
Then you proceed to insinuate that this type of movie technique is a purely American phenomena as your excuse for not understanding and that I'm being closed-minded for assuming the rest of the world's film industries operate in the same way (when the original source of your confusion was exactly the same thing - assuming the world's film industry operates in the same way as your countries does - according to you at least). Then you proceed to insult and discredit any future Scandinavian post (that doesn't exist yet) if they undermine you and say "I understood perfectly fine". All of this because people disagreed with you and said they understood it and that it was rather obvious.
How are you not being hypocritically aggressive and stuck-up here?
Again, I apologize for my initial rudeness but I am still dumbfounded at how anyone could be confused about the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons(?) of the dark ages not both speaking modern English. I mean when we reach the scene where the vikings are speaking a different language with English subtitles in front of the Englishmen, we are really faced with two generally obvious possibilities, maybe others if you want to get creative:
1. The vikings actually speak the same English as the Englishmen since they have been doing it for the entire show and are only just pretending they can't speak English for some special reason internal to the story (which you can definitely discredit if you have a vague historical understanding of the time period).
or
2. The vikings don't speak the same English as the Englishmen and there must be some other reason external to the story why the characters speak English in scenes without Englishmen but not in scenes with Englishmen - namely that the primary language of the target audience is English.
Instead of going through (or even beginning) this thought process and trying to reason out how it could make sense, you default to "wtf that doesn't make any sense at all". I'm sorry if my calling it a stupid complaint offended you, but I still think it is completely retarded.
The stupidity of your post had little to do with "Americanizaiton" of entertainment to your own language. It had everything to do with your complaint that it was too hard to understand that the English and Vikings were speaking different languages because for the majority of the show they both spoke "English" unless they were in each others presence. I mean, I might be going out on a limb here, but if this should aired in your country, are you seriously going to argue that they would have spoken in Old Nordic with modern Swedish subtitles? I might be oblivious to other cultures here, but how is adapting film, music, etc entertainment to your own countries primary spoken language labeled as "Americanization". It seems like a universal trend that any culture wouldn't be faulted for taking part in. That goes without saying, there is no fault in doing the contrary, as you seem to imply your country always does (which don't take offense to this, but I highly doubt you're being honest here - maybe another Swede can correct me here), and adapt any fictional setting with all characters purely speaking the language within the story and adding subtitles so the audience understands.
What I meant with the americanization part is that America often "Americanizes" popular movies (for example, the french movie The Intouchables, or hey, even our swedish movie The girl with the dragon tattoo). Since America does that, it's no surprise that you've encountered this thing before (the double language thingy) while I, a Swedish person, hasn't. Is it weird that it makes no sense to me when I've never encountered it before?
anyway u didn't understand what I meant with the americanization part? wow man ur such a total retard everybody else understood it hurr durr
You didn't address my concerns about this being a purely American phenomena at all.
The worst part about your post is how hypocritical you are being in accusing everyone of being "aggressive" and "stuck up", especially when your default go-to position when faced with something you don't understand is "it doesn't make sense". I'm sorry if I came off as rude, but I was shocked that you were legitimately complaining about that of all things.
Could you please explain to me how it's aggressive and stuck-up to think that something doesn't make sense? Because last time I checked, people being able to speak a language fluently one scene and not being able to the next scene does not make sense. Does it make sense from a production point of view? Yes I guess so, however as I've never seen this before, it didn't make sense at all to me.
You're being aggressive by exploding at everyone. Looking back on the initial responses to your confusion, I was really the only rude response in the entire batch. Everyone else was completely civil in their responses. Then you say things like
"What the fuck is your problem?", "Do you get butthurt over that?", and "just a perfect example of how passive aggressive people here are" at the entire collective.
Then you proceed to insinuate that this type of movie technique is a purely American phenomena as your excuse for not understanding and that I'm being closed-minded for assuming the rest of the world's film industries operate in the same way (when the original source of your confusion was exactly the same thing - assuming the world's film industry operates in the same way as your countries does - according to you at least). Then you proceed to insult and discredit any future Scandinavian post (that doesn't exist yet) if they undermine you and say "I understood perfectly fine". All of this because people disagreed with you and said they understood it and that it was rather obvious.
How are you not being hypocritically aggressive and stuck-up here?
Again, I apologize for my initial rudeness but I am still dumbfounded at how anyone could be confused about the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons(?) of the dark ages not both speaking modern English. I mean when we reach the scene where the vikings are speaking a different language with English subtitles in front of the Englishmen, we are really faced with two generally obvious possibilities, maybe others if you want to get creative:
1. The vikings actually speak the same English as the Englishmen since they have been doing it for the entire show and are only just pretending they can't speak English for some special reason internal to the story (which you can definitely discredit if you have a vague historical understanding of the time period).
or
2. The vikings don't speak the same English as the Englishmen and there must be some other reason external to the story why the characters speak English in scenes without Englishmen but not in scenes with Englishmen - namely that the primary language of the target audience is English.
Instead of going through (or even beginning) this thought process and trying to reason out how it could make sense, you default to "wtf that doesn't make any sense at all". I'm sorry if my calling it a stupid complaint offended you, but I still think it is completely retarded.
Its a common technique in german films too. Especially WW2 films.
The English spoken in the 8th century is pretty much an entirely different language from today's English, or even Middle English for that matter.
Anyways, I get the feeling Bjorn and his mother are the only characters with any common sense. Rollo is a a bad person in many ways, and Ragnar is proving to be a royal douche as well .
The stupidity of your post had little to do with "Americanizaiton" of entertainment to your own language. It had everything to do with your complaint that it was too hard to understand that the English and Vikings were speaking different languages because for the majority of the show they both spoke "English" unless they were in each others presence. I mean, I might be going out on a limb here, but if this should aired in your country, are you seriously going to argue that they would have spoken in Old Nordic with modern Swedish subtitles? I might be oblivious to other cultures here, but how is adapting film, music, etc entertainment to your own countries primary spoken language labeled as "Americanization". It seems like a universal trend that any culture wouldn't be faulted for taking part in. That goes without saying, there is no fault in doing the contrary, as you seem to imply your country always does (which don't take offense to this, but I highly doubt you're being honest here - maybe another Swede can correct me here), and adapt any fictional setting with all characters purely speaking the language within the story and adding subtitles so the audience understands.
What I meant with the americanization part is that America often "Americanizes" popular movies (for example, the french movie The Intouchables, or hey, even our swedish movie The girl with the dragon tattoo). Since America does that, it's no surprise that you've encountered this thing before (the double language thingy) while I, a Swedish person, hasn't. Is it weird that it makes no sense to me when I've never encountered it before?
anyway u didn't understand what I meant with the americanization part? wow man ur such a total retard everybody else understood it hurr durr
You didn't address my concerns about this being a purely American phenomena at all.
I didn't say it was a purely american phenomena
You're being aggressive by exploding at everyone. Looking back on the initial responses to your confusion, I was really the only rude response in the entire batch. Everyone else was completely civil in their responses. Then you say things like
"What the fuck is your problem?", "Do you get butthurt over that?", and "just a perfect example of how passive aggressive people here are" at the entire collective.
At the entire collective? It's pointed at people who are as rude as you were, not the ones that reply in a civil manner.
Then you proceed to insinuate that this type of movie technique is a purely American phenomena as your excuse for not understanding
I'm not saying it's purely American, but since you're from America it'd make sense for me to bring up Americanization.
and that I'm being closed-minded for assuming the rest of the world's film industries operate in the same way (when the original source of your confusion was exactly the same thing - assuming the world's film industry operates in the same way as your countries does - according to you at least).
Aren't you the one that is assuming that the rest of the world is operating in the same way, since you're the one assuming that everybody have seen this "phenomena" before and should thus be familiar with it?
Then you proceed to insult and discredit any future Scandinavian post (that doesn't exist yet) if they undermine you and say "I understood perfectly fine". All of this because people disagreed with you and said they understood it and that it was rather obvious.
How are you not being hypocritically aggressive and stuck-up here?
Rofl, I "proceeded to insult and discredit any future Scandinavian post that doesn't even exist yet" because that's usually what happens, some smartass comes by. I don't see why any Scandinavian would take offense to that unless they do just as I said.
And if you think I'm being hypocritically aggressive and stuck-up to you I'd agree, however if you'd reply in a civil manner to me, I'd do the same back. Or do you expect me to act politely to you when you don't do the same to me?
Again, I apologize for my initial rudeness but I am still dumbfounded at how anyone could be confused about the Vikings and Anglo-Saxons(?) of the dark ages not both speaking modern English. I mean when we reach the scene where the vikings are speaking a different language with English subtitles in front of the Englishmen, we are really faced with two generally obvious possibilities, maybe others if you want to get creative:
1. The vikings actually speak the same English as the Englishmen since they have been doing it for the entire show and are only just pretending they can't speak English for some special reason internal to the story (which you can definitely discredit if you have a vague historical understanding of the time period).
or
2. The vikings don't speak the same English as the Englishmen and there must be some other reason external to the story why the characters speak English in scenes without Englishmen but not in scenes with Englishmen - namely that the primary language of the target audience is English.
And once again, you need to bring up how I'm unable to think things through properly huh?
Instead of going through (or even beginning) this thought process and trying to reason out how it could make sense, you default to "wtf that doesn't make any sense at all". I'm sorry if my calling it a stupid complaint offended you, but I still think it is completely retarded.
Don't you think it's ignorant to assume that everybody has the same thought process as you about everything?
If everybody kept their thoughts to themself there wouldn't be much discussion, would there? But shame on me for asking a question about something and stating thatIdon't think it makes sense.
Either way I won't reply anymore after this as I don't see the point in arguing about it.
On topic I think the last 2 episodes have been quite boring but I'm looking forward to seeing what Rollo will do in the next episode.
So I'm at episode 4 and I like it more and more so far. It has a few clichés that are annoying and I just want them to get rid of the earl so that we can get to something else (really don't really believe the character) and some stuff are more fantasy than history. But its well made, well acted, visually very pleasing and it didn't pulled a Spartacus (porn, CGI background and ninja fights).
Now... just make a TV series on Crusades please and I'll litteraly have a boner (bah maybe crusades is a touchy subjects for some of their viewers )
Just saw that History as agreed for a second season. Cool.
finally decided to betray his brother. Took him long enough.. Unless next episode they pull another "lolol you thought he would betray but he actually pley along and he friend with his brother again rolololo.
Last ep felt like a soap. I guess they just went for character development since they got a second season and all. but I almost fell asleep. I thought it would be a lot more exciting for a season finale. especially since we don't get another taste until 2014. Meh.
I don't understand why the kid was so upset at his dad in this one. Didn't husband and wife both agree to ask the priest to join them in bed. Now all the sudden infidelity is a touchy subject.
On May 01 2013 11:09 Magic_Mike wrote: I don't understand why the kid was so upset at his dad in this one. Didn't husband and wife both agree to ask the priest to join them in bed. Now all the sudden infidelity is a touchy subject.
The son doesn't want his dad to cheat on his mom. He also probably gets that if dad starts going with another woman they're going to have children that he will be a rival to and threaten his place in the world.
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qRlZYAo.jpg)
(bah maybe crusades is a touchy subjects for some of their viewers 
