Sup TL? After not meeting Hot Bid I decided to look around for something to do, and just a couple of hours ago I found out about this new series through HBO Noridc, called "Vikings".
From Wiki
"Vikings is a historical drama television series, written and created by Michael Hirst for the Canadian television channel History, on which it premiered on March 3, 2013. Filmed in Ireland, the series is inspired by the tales about the Viking Ragnar Lodbrok, one of the best-known Norse heroes and notorious as the scourge of France and England. It portrays Ragnar as a Viking farmer who pioneers the first daring raids into England with the support of fellow warriors, his brother, and his wife, the shieldmaiden Lagertha."
I'm not really sure what I think of the series yet, it's to early to judge, but I'll mention some good and less good things.
Good- Epic setting, the landscape is really beatiful, and vikings are really cool... Not so good- I guess it's intentional, but some of the characters English is rather brutal to listen to (IMO), now this might just add to the "authenticness" but it takes away more then it gives according to me. This might just be a side effect after watching GOT, but some scenes (for example the scene when the guy get's his head cut off) just seems rather low quality-ish, but I guess you can't have everything?.
With that said I do think this series has a rather big potential, we'll see how it turns out!
So, have any of you guys seen "Vikings" yet? If so, what do you think?
hmm sounds very interesting. I read your spoiler, now it doesnt sound as interesting anymore
A swede is in this movie, gustaf skarsgårs thats really cool, iam a sweede myself, not movie, series
But i sure as hell would like to see what it is, the trailer i saw in your spoiler it seems to be good from it
I like good acting, good characters, and good scenes. Like the fighting should be good-made, the story is not as important as long as it is told in a good way
On March 15 2013 08:20 WikidSik wrote: im canadian and it says that its not available in my country
I'm watching it on Hulu with mediahint.
I recently came to realize that if I knew as much about real history as I did about fake history (game of thrones) I would be a much more knowledgeable person. It was right about the time this show premiered so I decided to give it a shot.
So far I'm liking it. I want to give them a few more episodes to find their stride before being too critical.
What language was the English envoy speaking? I assume the vikings were speaking some Scandinavia language at this point for authenticity (kinda sounded swedish-ish) but I also couldn't understand the Englishmen.
I'm really liking it, Episode 1 got me hooked and I've been watching the pre-airs as they come out, episode 1 was definitely the best so far but I'm optimistic that we are gonna get some awesome progress. I am a bit scared that they are going to true to the period and people are gonna get bored because things don't move fast enough. I just want the Jarl to kick the bucket already, ODIN favors you just pig stick that nerd.
On March 15 2013 08:20 WikidSik wrote: im canadian and it says that its not available in my country
I'm watching it on Hulu with mediahint.
I recently came to realize that if I knew as much about real history as I did about fake history (game of thrones) I would be a much more knowledgeable person. It was right about the time this show premiered so I decided to give it a shot.
So far I'm liking it. I want to give them a few more episodes to find their stride before being too critical.
What language was the English envoy speaking? I assume the vikings were speaking some Scandinavia language at this point for authenticity (kinda sounded swedish-ish) but I also couldn't understand the Englishmen.
They landed on the shores of the Kingdom of Northumbria which is an Anglo Saxon kingdom before the Danish (Viking) conquest of England. Modern English is a fusion of many languages so the English then and the English we know now is not the same.
Basically England wasn't actually England back then. The British isles were populated by mainly Celtic people (much the same with most of western Europe before Roman conquests), Rome invaded and conquered the southern part of the British isle, when Rome fall, the people there were were half way between Celt and Roman, then the Anglos and Saxons came over, then the Danes came (where our story starts).
You mean the earl right? I don't believe they had a King yet. That part is properly made up for ease of story telling. Since the Vikings have being trading and raiding Europe for ages... they must have come into contact with people who were part of the Roman empire and Romans knew about Britain.
Or maybe the vikings knew about England as a land somewhere to the west but they are not sure where or how far it is exactly. Kinda like Colombus knew about China and India but they don't know how far or where it is except a general direction so Earl is telling them to stfu and stop dreaming. It's pretty clear by the mood of the show that the Earl is the one against progress and more interested in his own control and power and Ragnar is a problem child keen to prove him wrong.
I tuned in for the pilot thinking it was a documentary for some reason. I forgot this was the network of Ice Road Truckers and Pawn Stars, silly me.
But I watched anyway, and it was okay. Vikings need more love in pop culture, and the show represents the age fairly well. It's a "background show" for now, but I'll keep watching hoping it gets awesome. And the main character's wife is hot.
Has become my new historic/action piece... since Spartacus has turned into a Porno..with blood shooting everywhere.
(literally..cant even watch it anymore... there is enough porn on the internet...i dont watch TV specifically for boobs, dicks, or vaginas. fuck that shows writer/directors for being sick as fuck...and thinking apparently the right balance = 60% sex, 30% action, 10% story.... Seasons 1-2 were soooooooooooooo good, 3 was pretty good too... this one is sooooooooooo terrible, literally its like watching bloody porn ffs)
Really enjoying the show so far. Was very happy + Show Spoiler +
when his wife roflstomped those vagabonds and sent them on their way... was going to be pissed if this turned into a sideplot mini-spartacus bs
Have ALWAYS wondered, especially as a literature student, why 0 history/mythology is read/discussed in school from Europe/Norse, all we ever read and talk about are the Greeks... but ive read pretty much all of it, and have always wanted to learn more about Norse mythology (i mean pretty much everyone studies beowulf/Canterbury Tales... but thats about as much as anyone talks about until Shakespeare)
So I am enjoying getting to watch it, especially since its on the History channel, and accuracy is actually a big part of the project.
also i dont have to fast forward through 10 minute sex scenes every other 10 mins.
Show has been quite enjoyable so far, as far as the episode 3 issue, This Sunday is the official air date for it but History had a digital exclusive of it up on its website so that is why its up on pirate sites and Hulu etc.
On March 15 2013 13:03 Dosey wrote: I like it, but sometimes it feels like the English is written, directed, and acted by some of my Russian buddies that barely speak English.
This is exactly how I feel hehe ^__^ I'll watch EP 2 later on today!
On March 15 2013 19:35 Ljas wrote: Well that trailer was awful. They've been smart enough to avoid dubstep in the actual series, right?
Was looking for this comment to make sure I didn't post the same. What a horrible trailer.
To add to it. It's hard to take the "historical" approach of a show seriously when they portray it like that. I have a friend who studies vikings as a passion/hobby, so I might ask him for his take on it.
Watched the first two episodes and enjoyed it a lot. I'm gonna watch the 3rd later... I like those kinds of show a lot, like Rome, etc.. Are there other must watch show like this ?
On March 15 2013 14:32 MaestroSC wrote: Loved the show.
Has become my new historic/action piece... since Spartacus has turned into a Porno..with blood shooting everywhere.
(literally..cant even watch it anymore... there is enough porn on the internet...i dont watch TV specifically for boobs, dicks, or vaginas. fuck that shows writer/directors for being sick as fuck...and thinking apparently the right balance = 60% sex, 30% action, 10% story.... Seasons 1-2 were soooooooooooooo good, 3 was pretty good too... this one is sooooooooooo terrible, literally its like watching bloody porn ffs)
Really enjoying the show so far. Was very happy + Show Spoiler +
when his wife roflstomped those vagabonds and sent them on their way... was going to be pissed if this turned into a sideplot mini-spartacus bs
Have ALWAYS wondered, especially as a literature student, why 0 history/mythology is read/discussed in school from Europe/Norse, all we ever read and talk about are the Greeks... but ive read pretty much all of it, and have always wanted to learn more about Norse mythology (i mean pretty much everyone studies beowulf/Canterbury Tales... but thats about as much as anyone talks about until Shakespeare)
So I am enjoying getting to watch it, especially since its on the History channel, and accuracy is actually a big part of the project.
also i dont have to fast forward through 10 minute sex scenes every other 10 mins.
Spoiler for anyone curious about the actual history of Canute: + Show Spoiler +
He conquers England and the Anglo-Saxons and becomes the King of England, Denmark and Sweden. Within 3 decades his house loses England to the Normans in 1066. (Normans were also Vikings who were given land by the King of France).
Awesome series so far! if they keep it up this will be one of my fav's
On March 15 2013 20:21 Kimaker wrote: Spoiler for anyone curious about the actual history of Canute: + Show Spoiler +
He conquers England and the Anglo-Saxons and becomes the King of England, Denmark and Sweden. Within 3 decades his house loses England to the Normans in 1066. (Normans were also Vikings who were given land by the King of France).
On March 15 2013 14:32 MaestroSC wrote: Loved the show.
Has become my new historic/action piece... since Spartacus has turned into a Porno..with blood shooting everywhere.
(literally..cant even watch it anymore... there is enough porn on the internet...i dont watch TV specifically for boobs, dicks, or vaginas. fuck that shows writer/directors for being sick as fuck...and thinking apparently the right balance = 60% sex, 30% action, 10% story.... Seasons 1-2 were soooooooooooooo good, 3 was pretty good too... this one is sooooooooooo terrible, literally its like watching bloody porn ffs)
Really enjoying the show so far. Was very happy + Show Spoiler +
when his wife roflstomped those vagabonds and sent them on their way... was going to be pissed if this turned into a sideplot mini-spartacus bs
Have ALWAYS wondered, especially as a literature student, why 0 history/mythology is read/discussed in school from Europe/Norse, all we ever read and talk about are the Greeks... but ive read pretty much all of it, and have always wanted to learn more about Norse mythology (i mean pretty much everyone studies beowulf/Canterbury Tales... but thats about as much as anyone talks about until Shakespeare)
So I am enjoying getting to watch it, especially since its on the History channel, and accuracy is actually a big part of the project.
also i dont have to fast forward through 10 minute sex scenes every other 10 mins.
I thought Spartacus was always something like soft core porn. I mean, after a few episodes I really only watched it because Lucy Lawless is unbelievably attractive.
Anyway, I saw a preview for this a few days ago and it looks pretty damn good. I'll have to check it out.
On March 15 2013 14:32 MaestroSC wrote: Loved the show.
Has become my new historic/action piece... since Spartacus has turned into a Porno..with blood shooting everywhere.
(literally..cant even watch it anymore... there is enough porn on the internet...i dont watch TV specifically for boobs, dicks, or vaginas. fuck that shows writer/directors for being sick as fuck...and thinking apparently the right balance = 60% sex, 30% action, 10% story.... Seasons 1-2 were soooooooooooooo good, 3 was pretty good too... this one is sooooooooooo terrible, literally its like watching bloody porn ffs)
Really enjoying the show so far. Was very happy + Show Spoiler +
when his wife roflstomped those vagabonds and sent them on their way... was going to be pissed if this turned into a sideplot mini-spartacus bs
Have ALWAYS wondered, especially as a literature student, why 0 history/mythology is read/discussed in school from Europe/Norse, all we ever read and talk about are the Greeks... but ive read pretty much all of it, and have always wanted to learn more about Norse mythology (i mean pretty much everyone studies beowulf/Canterbury Tales... but thats about as much as anyone talks about until Shakespeare)
So I am enjoying getting to watch it, especially since its on the History channel, and accuracy is actually a big part of the project.
also i dont have to fast forward through 10 minute sex scenes every other 10 mins.
I thought Spartacus was always something like soft core porn. I mean, after a few episodes I really only watched it because Lucy Lawless is unbelievably attractive.
Anyway, I saw a preview for this a few days ago and it looks pretty damn good. I'll have to check it out.
Ya but it used to be... 1 episode of porn... 2 episodes of not much more than boobs. So ya you expected one porn episode every 3rd or 4th...
Newest season is like... Porn! Porn! Porn! Blood! Story! Porn Porn! Blood! Porn! Blood! Porn Porn Porn Story Porn Porn
I haven’t seen Tudors nor Camelot but it’s probably safe to assume this is another soap opera. The quality is all over the place. So far I like it more than the start of Spartacus: Blood and Sand (which I had to drop after the first season) but it comes nowhere near close Game of Thrones, let alone The Rome.
Just as a side note, this show is not historically accurate. There are things that would really never happen among real vikings (random shaman in a bone house wtf, jarl without a beard, jarl's relationship with his men is not at all how it worked...) Beyond those "minor" inaccuracies, it's still pretty good and mostly faithful to how things happened. It is not however of documentary value, and shouldn't be taken as such.
My main problem with the show, aside from english-speaking actors trying to imitate a nordic person speaking english, is the pacing. Viking raids overseas weren't weekend getaways, they were seasonal affairs. Episode 2,3 spoiler + Show Spoiler +
So it's a bit confusing trying to figure out how much time has passed between different scenes when an expedition that should realistically have taken 1-3 months takes up 1 episode and then they leave for a new one half an episode later.
And because the show rushes in to the pillaging and plundering part of viking history so fast, it leaves some other parts of the story stubbed, how big is the town the earl resides in, who is the earl, how many soldiers does he command compared to the amount of farmer that live in his domain?
I'm sure some of that will be revealed as the show goes along, but for now it just feels rushed and really weirdly paced.
One thing that bothered me is how the Jarl killed the blacksmith with no hesitation. That is a skilled craftsmen who took YEARS to learn his trade. He likely made weapons and armor for their people. You can't just replace somebody like that. An implied threat or a stern talking-to would have been more realistic.
On March 17 2013 03:54 netisopl1 wrote: One thing that bothered me is how the Jarl killed the blacksmith with no hesitation. That is a skilled craftsmen who took YEARS to learn his trade. He likely made weapons and armor for their people. You can't just replace somebody like that. An implied threat or a stern talking-to would have been more realistic.
Well i think the show is very much trying to emphasize that the Jarl is pretty mad (as in mental). In episode 3 it's made quite clear he's a few ducks short of a pond.
I quite enjoy the show, though i'm hoping it will become more educational, maybe work in Charlemagne? Being on the history channel i was hoping the show would be a bit more informative. I mean Lindisfarne is good and all but i learnt all this stuff when i was about 8.
Why in the world would you mess with the light filters? Ragnar's eye were looking ghostly blue in hall, then it switched to fremen-like blue, than it changes some shades again, just to be green when they are sailing away? If you mess around at least maintain some consistency...
On top of stale dialogue and generic lines, build upon a script with predictable plots and twists. It makes me cringe...
It's not too complex but it's actually a really great show for how basic it is. The character development and plots are fairly simple but they definitely make that simplicity shine. The environment is really well done and definitely feels like you're watching historical vikings (minus a few really small complaints).
It isn't nearly as good as a show like Rome but it doesn't have cheesy combat like 300 and doesn't participate in gratuitous sex spam like Spartacus so I can't hate on it either.
the assassins were earls men right? we saw the right hand of the earl near a cart dead full of people(i guess they were the assassins) why didn't they tried to kill him at his farm far away from his friends? that attack looked stupid to me. i assume saxons can't sail that far to kill him even if they know where he is
I like this series very much since I am very interested in history stuff. Also, Katheryn Winnick is great <3. Too bad she didn't have any significant success in Holywood.
Watched 2 episodes. Show is good, but really not anything original, lots of clichés, most failed attempt at creating character depth (Earl) and plot pretty boring. But like the boat builder.
On March 17 2013 03:54 netisopl1 wrote: One thing that bothered me is how the Jarl killed the blacksmith with no hesitation. That is a skilled craftsmen who took YEARS to learn his trade. He likely made weapons and armor for their people. You can't just replace somebody like that. An implied threat or a stern talking-to would have been more realistic.
Well i think the show is very much trying to emphasize that the Jarl is pretty mad (as in mental). In episode 3 it's made quite clear he's a few ducks short of a pond.
I quite enjoy the show, though i'm hoping it will become more educational, maybe work in Charlemagne? Being on the history channel i was hoping the show would be a bit more informative. I mean Lindisfarne is good and all but i learnt all this stuff when i was about 8.
History Channel stopped being historical sometime around "Ancient Aliens", "Nostradamus Effect", and started picking up speed towards reality as Pawn Stars, American Pickers, Counting Cars, American Restoration, Only in America came in. It's now trying to add some light fictionalizations with Vikings and its other new show The Bible.
Still has SOME history going on, but it can be tough to be sure. It's not like the old days, when it was WWII all day every day and extra Nazis before dinner. I think they'll try to give at least a nod to history - but then they are raiding England and Ireland while not being sure there's anything to the West. They were better sailors than that - and Ragnar Lodbrok was known for raiding France, not England.
But of course, one of the issues with Norse history (aside from language issues) is that they were an oral tradition. Stories were not written down for a long time. (Yes, they did have paper. Storytelling and oral history is tradition - it is just how things were done.) It could be that this is a different Ragnar, or a combination of several different Ragnar sagas.
On March 17 2013 03:54 netisopl1 wrote: One thing that bothered me is how the Jarl killed the blacksmith with no hesitation. That is a skilled craftsmen who took YEARS to learn his trade. He likely made weapons and armor for their people. You can't just replace somebody like that. An implied threat or a stern talking-to would have been more realistic.
Well i think the show is very much trying to emphasize that the Jarl is pretty mad (as in mental). In episode 3 it's made quite clear he's a few ducks short of a pond.
I quite enjoy the show, though i'm hoping it will become more educational, maybe work in Charlemagne? Being on the history channel i was hoping the show would be a bit more informative. I mean Lindisfarne is good and all but i learnt all this stuff when i was about 8.
History Channel stopped being historical sometime around "Ancient Aliens", "Nostradamus Effect", and started picking up speed towards reality as Pawn Stars, American Pickers, Counting Cars, American Restoration, Only in America came in. It's now trying to add some light fictionalizations with Vikings and its other new show The Bible.
Still has SOME history going on, but it can be tough to be sure. It's not like the old days, when it was WWII all day every day and extra Nazis before dinner. I think they'll try to give at least a nod to history - but then they are raiding England and Ireland while not being sure there's anything to the West. They were better sailors than that - and Ragnar Lodbrok was known for raiding France, not England.
But of course, one of the issues with Norse history (aside from language issues) is that they were an oral tradition. Stories were not written down for a long time. (Yes, they did have paper. Storytelling and oral history is tradition - it is just how things were done.) It could be that this is a different Ragnar, or a combination of several different Ragnar sagas.
Ragnar Lotbrook is one of those individuals in history that you can never be sure of entirely. Depending on the historian he's either legend, real, or a mixture of several different men. Most of what we take for granted about his legend is passed through plays made after the era. Alas, while the Vikings werent exactly the gold standard of written history keepers several raids are attributed to him that we know that happen from other cultures.
Paris is obviously the big one and I'm pretty sure we'll get to all of his french escapades after the jarl is disposed of. However as far as England goes, its accepted he raided the hell out of it as well, infact the stories of his death are all attributed to the king of this part of england, it makes sense in a story telling perspective to meet him first so we can have a full circle story at the end of the series.
I'm enjoying the show. It's entertainment with good visuals and actors. I've not yet come to a conclusion about how much i like the story, it can surely develope in a good or bad way. Oh, Lagertha is hot as hell.
On March 19 2013 01:29 Caphe wrote: I like this series very much since I am very interested in history stuff. Also, Katheryn Winnick is great <3. Too bad she didn't have any significant success in Holywood.
I like this one. It took me until at least the end of episode two before I decided it was going to be something I'd stick with. But now that I've seen 3, and we're really getting a feel for the characters, I can see this show potentially going a long ways.
Ill try not to spoil anything, but at the battle on the beach in episode 4, the vikings seemed incredibly well trained as a unit, almost roman style. While I know a little about viking culture, I have never read or heard them using fighting techniques like that. Was this done on purpose, or just a slip from the directors?
Hello there fellow Ragnar fans, I read that this series is aired on Sundays but i checked dates that said EP.05 is aired 31/3, can someone with History channel confirm this?
I'm guessing the common knowledge of the West was very limited. It was nothing more than stories, no hard proof. And, as mentioned, they also couldn't navigate open sea. With those two facts combined, you can understand that the King wasn't that keen on sending his raids to the West, as he saw it as a big gamble. Saying "There is nothing to the West" is a good way of keeping people from trying (until, ofcourse, he gets proven wrong and looks like a fool).
Ragnar discovered a way to sail west without being lost in the middle of Atlantic ocean.
Sounds strange... You can even see England from the northern coast of France. It's also strange considering vikings were the great travellers of this era. They even went to America. How is it that a British priest has been all 'round Scandinavia and learnt the language, whilst the vikings have been masturbating in their village.
On March 21 2013 19:49 CoR wrote: as usual video not available in germany, any other source then youtube ? they block all for germany
Going to give this a bump. The episode of sunday was amazing, and I think I might even be enjoying the show more than Game of Thrones. Nordic Mythology always spoke to me, and the show's giving a great interpretation of it. Anyone else watched it? + Show Spoiler +
The part where the old man explains how he wants to fight so he can join his fellow warriors in the halls up high was so well acted. Really loved that scene.
Unfortunatelly this show hasn't turned out to be excellent, it's ok entertainment, but personally i find the dialogues and characters too flat. Dramatizing the story might be necessary for average viewers, but i don't enjoy them moving away so far from actual history. Show's somewhere between 6/10 and 7/10, i will probably continue watching but with Game of Thrones continuing, Vikings doesn't look or feel good.
Ragnar discovered a way to sail west without being lost in the middle of Atlantic ocean.
Sounds strange... You can even see England from the northern coast of France. It's also strange considering vikings were the great travellers of this era. They even went to America. How is it that a British priest has been all 'round Scandinavia and learnt the language, whilst the vikings have been masturbating in their village.
Of course the vikings knew about the british isles. It's lame (and extremely inaccurate) to insinuate that they were ignorant about it. But overall I like this show, I really do.
Watched the first episode but the way they speak just makes my skin crawl, maybe it´s because im scandi and our politicians have english like that, swenglish as it is often refered to, but i can´t stand it. Might suck it up and watch ep 2 but, i don't really have a desire to do so.
On April 16 2013 03:09 alypse wrote: Christian name Rolf, lol... I see what you did there...
You may be grasping at straws a bit there, Rolf is a legit name in Scandinavia.
I have to agree with unkkz about their accent, it really bugs me at times. But on the other hand I do love that I get to watch a show that seems to portrait vikings in a way that isn't ridiculous.
I really think this last episode was the best in the series by far. It really took the extremely slow setup into fast raging action packed battle style that makes up most of the show and had a story that fit it really well. The way the vikings win battles isn't crazy but is a hell of a lot more convincing then Spartacus ever had.
really enjoying where this series is going more and more as it goes on.
This series is great. I love the depiction of the vikings in contrast to the christians. I dont even notice the accents but maybe its because german english is alot worse than this. I really hate ragnars wife though. As if she could tell Canute not to rape a saxon girl... Pagan women may have had more freedom and rights than christian women but not that much.
Rolf is a normal name in Germany too. The christians actually let most of the pagans keep their traditions and names at first to get them to convert so I think this name is actually quite believable.
I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
On April 16 2013 06:44 sereniity wrote: I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak on their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
It is confusing yes; but better than the alternative where they both speak English yet cannot understand eachother. Obviously the reason they speak English 'at home' is just to appeal to a wider audience. I would find it really annoying to read subtitles all the time.
The accents do not bother me in the slightest. Very enjoyable series!
I didn't watch TV shows for a very, very long time before Vikings. This show is amazing . I LOVE IT!!
Also guys, the English spoken at that time is Old English. It's almost entirely different from Middle English (think Shakespeare) and especially modern English.
On April 16 2013 06:44 sereniity wrote: I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak on their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
Makes sense from productions point of view. I don't mind it. I kinda like it ^^
On April 16 2013 06:44 sereniity wrote: I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak on their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
Makes sense from productions point of view. I don't mind it. I kinda like it ^^
So you don't think it's weird that they are fully capable of speaking English in one scene, but everybody except Ragnar are incapable once they're in England? And if you say that the Viking English is different from the one they speak in England, then how come Ragnar can speak it?
As much as I like the series, it doesn't make sense at all.
Ragnar has been taught English by his priest/slave. Of course they aren't speaking English at home, it is just for the show. The only reason they let them speak Old Norse (??) was to emphasize that they could not understand English.
Edit: To clarify, I did not find it weird at all, and it did not bother me
On April 16 2013 06:44 sereniity wrote: I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak on their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
Makes sense from productions point of view. I don't mind it. I kinda like it ^^
So you don't think it's weird that they are fully capable of speaking English in one scene, but everybody except Ragnar are incapable once they're in England? And if you say that the Viking English is different from the one they speak in England, then how come Ragnar can speak it?
As much as I like the series, it doesn't make sense at all.
They are speaking Danish at home, we can just understand it because the show is made for Americans. Who, mysteriously, speak English. When they are in England we can understand the English because they speak English, Ragnark speaks English because of the priest and the rest of the Vikings speak Danish or whatever.
i like this serie so far. what i like the most is actually the paste at which the events go on: every episode we get to see something DIFFERENT happenning. Also what i really like is that we see female caracters developped as well (unlike series likes breaking bad where, heiseinberg's wife is just a pain in the ass throughout the serie or walking dead with rick's wife as well).
as for the language switching, it think its ok . i dont mind the accents as well, i dont think its even important.
On April 16 2013 06:44 sereniity wrote: I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak on their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
Makes sense from productions point of view. I don't mind it. I kinda like it ^^
So you don't think it's weird that they are fully capable of speaking English in one scene, but everybody except Ragnar are incapable once they're in England? And if you say that the Viking English is different from the one they speak in England, then how come Ragnar can speak it?
As much as I like the series, it doesn't make sense at all.
I 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.
I could be completely and totally wrong, but that's how I make sense of it in my mind =D
Is Ragnar's wife going to die.... that was a ton of blood Oo
On April 16 2013 06:44 sereniity wrote: I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak on their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
Makes sense from productions point of view. I don't mind it. I kinda like it ^^
So you don't think it's weird that they are fully capable of speaking English in one scene, but everybody except Ragnar are incapable once they're in England? And if you say that the Viking English is different from the one they speak in England, then how come Ragnar can speak it?
As much as I like the series, it doesn't make sense at all.
Lol this is obvious. The Englishmen in England don't actually speak english, as we know it today, that has been shown, for instance in Ragnars first encounter. They speak some sort of germanic old english. Ragnars slavepriest knows danish from his "travels", and he is the one who has been teaching Ragnar the language they speak in England.
They do it to show the viewers that the two groups can not understand each other, but if the Vikings would speak scandinavian (that would be gibberish, from most of the actors) and the englishmen would speak their germanic/old english/whatever then everything would have to be texted. That'd be unnecessary, unpopular and difficult. I think they pulled it off pretty well to be honest.
You guys arent understanding the language aspect....
they arent speaking english at home. They just didnt want the entire show in subtitles. Whenever they speak to eachother you should assume they are speaking their own language, but WE are hearing it in a language we understand. They have made this clear with several scenes...
IDK how people assumed this meant they speak english at home..but not when they are in england lmao... its a stylistic choice, so that we dont have to read subtitles throughout the entire movie, but when ACTUAL english is present, they have them speak their own language, while the actual english speakers speak their own language, so that we dont get confused.
Obviously Ragnar is the only one of them learning english from his priest, the rest dont speak it.
they are essnetially translating it for our ears... so we would hear it as if we spoke their language... but they are actually speaking THEIR language and not England's. IDK how people are unclear about this lmao
On April 17 2013 00:25 MaestroSC wrote: You guys arent understanding the language aspect....
they arent speaking english at home. They just didnt want the entire show in subtitles. Whenever they speak to eachother you should assume they are speaking their own language, but WE are hearing it in a language we understand. They have made this clear with several scenes...
IDK how people assumed this meant they speak english at home..but not when they are in england lmao... its a stylistic choice, so that we dont have to read subtitles throughout the entire movie, but when ACTUAL english is present, they have them speak their own language, while the actual english speakers speak their own language, so that we dont get confused.
Obviously Ragnar is the only one of them learning english from his priest, the rest dont speak it.
they are essnetially translating it for our ears... so we would hear it as if we spoke their language... but they are actually speaking THEIR language and not England's. IDK how people are unclear about this lmao
Thank you for writing all of this, so I don't have to :D
Can't believe so many people don't understand this, it's not that uncommon to see in films/series.
On April 16 2013 06:44 sereniity wrote: I don't understand why the vikings sometimes speak on their "own" language (not english) and Ragnar translates to his people, for example when they're in England.
But when they're at home they speak English fluently with each other.... makes no sense at all
Makes sense from productions point of view. I don't mind it. I kinda like it ^^
So you don't think it's weird that they are fully capable of speaking English in one scene, but everybody except Ragnar are incapable once they're in England? And if you say that the Viking English is different from the one they speak in England, then how come Ragnar can speak it?
As much as I like the series, it doesn't make sense at all.
It makes perfect sense given the language of the show's primary audience is English.
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.
edit: To be clear, I don't judge a movie negatively if it isn't in my language or requires subtitles for me to watch. I'm just saying your criticism of the choice not to in this case is absurd. If it was confusing at all about when they were speaking what language, then you might have a valid complaint, but at this point in the show there has been no such confusion.
On April 16 2013 01:14 unkkz wrote: Watched the first episode but the way they speak just makes my skin crawl, maybe it´s because im scandi and our politicians have english like that, swenglish as it is often refered to, but i can´t stand it. Might suck it up and watch ep 2 but, i don't really have a desire to do so.
I don't mind 'Swenglish', but anything's better than an American accent in a historical TV show/movie. At least it gives it a bit of authenticity. I also wouldn't mind if it was entirely in the nordic language they're supposed to be speaking, and then just having sub-titles.
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
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
well id rather have them speak english than having to listen to them butchering any scandinavian language ^^
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
well id rather have them speak english than having to listen to them butchering any scandinavian language ^^
Sure I would too, I just didn't see how it made any sense. But hey, now that these gentlemen so *kindly* explained that to me, I understand WHY atleast.
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
well id rather have them speak english than having to listen to them butchering any scandinavian language ^^
Sure I would too, I just didn't see how it made any sense. But hey, now that these gentlemen so *kindly* explained that to me, I understand WHY atleast.
What's the difference between "how" it made sense and "why" it made sense?
On April 23 2013 04:21 Coagulation wrote: did the viking have some kind of super creepy ass dude requirement or policy for their religious leaders or what?
Apparently so. They remind me of the pervert priests from 300.
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?
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.
4. Did the vikings of old really sacrifice their own warriors like goats to the gods?
2. I think they were Ragnars slaves working for him on his farm and not the Earl's men
4. Yes they did, in times of famine even the King of the country could be sacrificed to please the gods
I was quite surprised, after the show prompted me to do some research, to learn that human sacrifice continued in Europe at such a late date. It's an interesting contrast because later human sacrifice was usually a sign of decadence (Aztecs, Moloch, the Romans in their way), but the Vikings seemed to be stuck in such an early period.
I've just watched ep5 and I like it so far. If I have a concern though, it's that the show seems a bit unidimensional. At least so far, the Jarl is essentially purely evil. Not sure how someone like that would actually rule over others... I guess maybe it worked like that in those societies? I dunnos. Good show though.
On April 24 2013 03:40 Djzapz wrote: I've just watched ep5 and I like it so far. If I have a concern though, it's that the show seems a bit unidimensional. At least so far, the Jarl is essentially purely evil. Not sure how someone like that would actually rule over others... I guess maybe it worked like that in those societies? I dunnos. Good show though.
last episode was weird.... ragnar seemed alot spookier than he was previously, all because he wants more sons(sounds weird to me because i felt his wife was more of the feminist type in where they had apparently a pretty equal relationship and all of a sudden he turns mad patriach?
I don't understand why he would want to sacrifice the priest, when the guy had kinda integrated their society.
Im sad about the rolo character (his bro), at first i thought hed be somewhat of key element to the story, now he just looks weak and meatheaded (its obvious hes gonna turn against ragnar one day)
still i think theres alot more coming out of this serie, i like it so far
On April 24 2013 03:53 crazyweasel wrote: last episode was weird.... ragnar seemed alot spookier than he was previously, all because he wants more sons(sounds weird to me because i felt his wife was more of the feminist type in where they had apparently a pretty equal relationship and all of a sudden he turns mad patriach?
I don't understand why he would want to sacrifice the priest, when the guy had kinda integrated their society.
Im sad about the rolo character (his bro), at first i thought hed be somewhat of key element to the story, now he just looks weak and meatheaded (its obvious hes gonna turn against ragnar one day)
still i think theres alot more coming out of this serie, i like it so far
Considering they are willing to sacrifice their own warriors if need be, I don't think for a second he would have problems sacrificing the priest. But I also believe he knew the priest wouldn't go through with it (you had to be willing as well as beliving in their gods). I don't know the thinking behind it. Maybe he wanted Leif gone, or he thought someone else was going to take his place.
On April 24 2013 03:40 Djzapz wrote: I've just watched ep5 and I like it so far. If I have a concern though, it's that the show seems a bit unidimensional. At least so far, the Jarl is essentially purely evil. Not sure how someone like that would actually rule over others... I guess maybe it worked like that in those societies? I dunnos. Good show though.
ever heard of Hitler,Stalin,Kim yong ill?
The first two yes, the third one is pretty hilarious. What we're seeing here is very different.
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?
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.
Seemed strange after all they've been through that Rollo would take a shot by siding with a fella he barley knows and betray Ragnar. I didn't buy it. At the same time I wasn't buying Ragnar's putting his plans at risk by getting into a war that has nothing to do with him. I think there will be a few twists and turns when the series comes back.
I love the series from a entertainment point of view, but historically it's very inaccurate. It clearly shows them sailing from mountains, but Ragnar was situated in Denmark, where we don't have mountains(besides 1 small Island). Also, you see them at some point from the brittish point of view where I believe they are speaking norwegian. Only place not in Denmark in the series should be when they travel to Uppsala(Sweden) I believe, but mountains occur quite frequently and makes it confusing.
On May 02 2013 03:27 Cinim wrote: I love the series from a entertainment point of view, but historically it's very inaccurate. It clearly shows them sailing from mountains, but Ragnar was situated in Denmark, where we don't have mountains(besides 1 small Island). Also, you see them at some point from the brittish point of view where I believe they are speaking norwegian. Only place not in Denmark in the series should be when they travel to Uppsala(Sweden) I believe, but mountains occur quite frequently and makes it confusing.
Similar to a woman's body, it would be boring if it was all flat.
On May 02 2013 03:27 Cinim wrote: I love the series from a entertainment point of view, but historically it's very inaccurate. It clearly shows them sailing from mountains, but Ragnar was situated in Denmark, where we don't have mountains(besides 1 small Island). Also, you see them at some point from the brittish point of view where I believe they are speaking norwegian. Only place not in Denmark in the series should be when they travel to Uppsala(Sweden) I believe, but mountains occur quite frequently and makes it confusing.
Similar to a woman's body, it would be boring if it was all flat.
This is just 1 part of the historical inaccuracy, simply google it and you will find several things wrong. Even his name, is Ragnar Lodbrog not lothbrog (back then it was a slang for shaggy pants actually)
On May 02 2013 03:27 Cinim wrote: I love the series from a entertainment point of view, but historically it's very inaccurate. It clearly shows them sailing from mountains, but Ragnar was situated in Denmark, where we don't have mountains(besides 1 small Island). Also, you see them at some point from the brittish point of view where I believe they are speaking norwegian. Only place not in Denmark in the series should be when they travel to Uppsala(Sweden) I believe, but mountains occur quite frequently and makes it confusing.
I dont remember them speaking Norwegian, but someone earlier in the thread said he heard Finnish words. I think they are trying to imitate old Scandinavian (the language has a word, but I can't remember it right now).
On May 02 2013 03:27 Cinim wrote: I love the series from a entertainment point of view, but historically it's very inaccurate. It clearly shows them sailing from mountains, but Ragnar was situated in Denmark, where we don't have mountains(besides 1 small Island). Also, you see them at some point from the brittish point of view where I believe they are speaking norwegian. Only place not in Denmark in the series should be when they travel to Uppsala(Sweden) I believe, but mountains occur quite frequently and makes it confusing.
I dont remember them speaking Norwegian, but someone earlier in the thread said he heard Finnish words. I think they are trying to imitate old Scandinavian (the language has a word, but I can't remember it right now).
On May 02 2013 03:27 Cinim wrote: I love the series from a entertainment point of view, but historically it's very inaccurate. It clearly shows them sailing from mountains, but Ragnar was situated in Denmark, where we don't have mountains(besides 1 small Island). Also, you see them at some point from the brittish point of view where I believe they are speaking norwegian. Only place not in Denmark in the series should be when they travel to Uppsala(Sweden) I believe, but mountains occur quite frequently and makes it confusing.
I dont remember them speaking Norwegian, but someone earlier in the thread said he heard Finnish words. I think they are trying to imitate old Scandinavian (the language has a word, but I can't remember it right now).
I think it's very very hard to be historically accurate and still have an intriguing and exciting series/plot, at least the way they are shaping this series. I think they've done well to balance it out actually. The thing you said about mountains. If i remember correctly, they call their main town Kattegatt? Kattegatt is the gulf leading to Östersjön, the sea between sweden and finland/baltic countries. They live in Denmark, or somewhere around kattegatt. Now, I dunno exactly how the land around kattegatt looks, but Norway is very rocky, could be that they sail past there.
On May 02 2013 22:09 TOCHMY wrote: I think it's very very hard to be historically accurate and still have an intriguing and exciting series/plot, at least the way they are shaping this series. I think they've done well to balance it out actually. The thing you said about mountains. If i remember correctly, they call their main town Kattegatt? Kattegatt is the gulf leading to Östersjön, the sea between sweden and finland/baltic countries. They live in Denmark, or somewhere around kattegatt. Now, I dunno exactly how the land around kattegatt looks, but Norway is very rocky, could be that they sail past there.
Well, to me it looks very much like they lived next to those mountains. According to the history, back then they lived in Sjælland(the eastern big island) somewhere in the middle part, somewhere caled Lejre.
On May 02 2013 22:09 TOCHMY wrote: I think it's very very hard to be historically accurate and still have an intriguing and exciting series/plot, at least the way they are shaping this series. I think they've done well to balance it out actually. The thing you said about mountains. If i remember correctly, they call their main town Kattegatt? Kattegatt is the gulf leading to Östersjön, the sea between sweden and finland/baltic countries. They live in Denmark, or somewhere around kattegatt. Now, I dunno exactly how the land around kattegatt looks, but Norway is very rocky, could be that they sail past there.
Well, to me it looks very much like they lived next to those mountains. According to the history, back then they lived in Sjælland(the eastern big island) somewhere in the middle part, somewhere caled Lejre.
On May 02 2013 22:09 TOCHMY wrote: I think it's very very hard to be historically accurate and still have an intriguing and exciting series/plot, at least the way they are shaping this series. I think they've done well to balance it out actually. The thing you said about mountains. If i remember correctly, they call their main town Kattegatt? Kattegatt is the gulf leading to Östersjön, the sea between sweden and finland/baltic countries. They live in Denmark, or somewhere around kattegatt. Now, I dunno exactly how the land around kattegatt looks, but Norway is very rocky, could be that they sail past there.
Not to mention telling an accurate story about Ranger Lothbrok is about as easy as telling an accurate story about King Arthur. We don't even know if he lived or not. The vikings was not known for their talent of bookkeeping.. There are interviews with the creators of the show where they talk about this
I have a feeling that History will make Ragnar a patchwork of the whole viking age. They will ignore the relevant dates and make him raid the whole Europe, settle in England/Normandy, unite vikings and start converting them.
On May 06 2013 06:32 rezoacken wrote: I have a feeling that History will make Ragnar a patchwork of the whole viking age. They will ignore the relevant dates and make him raid the whole Europe, settle in England/Normandy, unite vikings and start converting them.
The creators have stated that the show is not fantasy. Its a mix between real and fiction (because they actually know very little about that age, seeing as the vikings didn't really care to write it down). They are going to stick to facts as much as they can, and add to it. The story of Ragnar Lothbrok and his sons are the most famous stories from that era. Everyone knows where its going to end, so you can't really start throwing out twists here and there. Doubly so as this is the History channel, and not HBO. The audience expects a certain standard of historical accuracy.
It would be like making a titanic movie where the ship doesn't sink.
All right. We'll see I guess. However, I feel the best way would have been to make a season per renown vikings so that the series may span the whole era, instead of a very small part of it... where not much is actually known about the guy. But I guess TV viewers are too used to keeping their character from one season to the next.
On May 06 2013 06:32 rezoacken wrote: I have a feeling that History will make Ragnar a patchwork of the whole viking age. They will ignore the relevant dates and make him raid the whole Europe, settle in England/Normandy, unite vikings and start converting them.
I dobut he will be converting them, seeing as it's not him, but Gorm the Old who converted the country into christians.
i dont understand the popularity of these sope-operas for stupid teenager, like GOT or spartacus, the scenario is exactly like brazilian operas but there are lots of tits and blood so it appeals to young males instead of housekeepers.
On May 12 2013 15:05 Psotnik wrote: i dont understand the popularity of these sope-operas for stupid teenager, like GOT or spartacus, the scenario is exactly like brazilian operas but there are lots of tits and blood so it appeals to young males instead of housekeepers.
If you think GoT is a soap opera for stupid teenagers you need some/better subtitles.
On May 12 2013 14:55 bonedOUT wrote: Heard this show is similar to game of thrones. How does it stack up to it?
No similar at all. It's pretty to look at a lot of the time. That's about the only similarity.
As the the person above who compared GoT to Spartacus, to this show.... Has clearly not seen any of them past the first episode, or is a very dense person. They're wildly different shows in theme, acting, atmosphere, story and directing.
I can give you that Spartacus and Game of Thrones has lots of tits, dicks, and asses And that both Spartacus and Vikings are based on history far in the past, and all three of them have murder, betrayal and corruption. That's about where the similarities die though.
On May 12 2013 14:55 bonedOUT wrote: Heard this show is similar to game of thrones. How does it stack up to it?
Hmm... it's really not the same thing. I think GoT is better but I still like Vikings in a more relaxed way. If you want a quick comparison: -Both series are well filmed and have good visuals (costumes, scenes etc). -Obviously Vikings as history roots while GoT is 100% fantasy. -No magic in Viking, some in GoT. Note that the mythology of the vikings is sometimes represented by "visions", giving the series a slight mystical feeling. -Vikings story is quite simple to follow, not many characters and they have fairly simple relations between them, there is only one main plot. GoT as so many characters that it can be pretty hard to follow who all of them are, there are as a result many plots at the same time. -Vikings is about Ragnar Lodbrok a legendary viking that raided England in late 8th century while GoT is about feudal "games" and magic. -If you accept Ragnar's constant arrogance smile as a character feature rather than uni-dimensional acting, both show have decent acting no problem there. -Vikings dialogue are unequal, some are really cheesy while some are good. GoT dialogues are in my opinion excellent. -Viking has more action than GoT and the fighting scenes are decent. -Viking has a less sex/nude scenes than GoT (very few).
That's about it.
On May 12 2013 15:05 Psotnik wrote: i dont understand the popularity of these sope-operas for stupid teenager, like GOT or spartacus, the scenario is exactly like brazilian operas but there are lots of tits and blood so it appeals to young males instead of housekeepers.
In one post you managed to both insult people and look like some dumb elitist/hipster, congratulations.
On May 12 2013 14:55 bonedOUT wrote: Heard this show is similar to game of thrones. How does it stack up to it?
Hmm... it's really not the same thing. I think GoT is better but I still like Vikings in a more relaxed way. If you want a quick comparison: -Both series are well filmed and have good visuals (costumes, scenes etc). -Obviously Vikings as history roots while GoT is 100% fantasy. -No magic in Viking, some in GoT. Note that the mythology of the vikings is sometimes represented by "visions", giving the series a slight mystical feeling. -Vikings story is quite simple to follow, not many characters and they have fairly simple relations between them, there is only one main plot. GoT as so many characters that it can be pretty hard to follow who all of them are, there are as a result many plots at the same time. -Vikings is about Ragnar Lodbrok a legendary viking that raided England in late 8th century while GoT is about feudal "games" and magic. -If you accept Ragnar's constant arrogance smile as a character feature rather than uni-dimensional acting, both show have decent acting no problem there. -Vikings dialogue are unequal, some are really cheesy while some are good. GoT dialogues are in my opinion excellent. -Viking has more action than GoT and the fighting scenes are decent. -Viking has a less sex/nude scenes than GoT (very few).
On May 12 2013 15:05 Psotnik wrote: i dont understand the popularity of these sope-operas for stupid teenager, like GOT or spartacus, the scenario is exactly like brazilian operas but there are lots of tits and blood so it appeals to young males instead of housekeepers.
In one post you managed to both insult people and look like some dumb elitist/hipster, congratulations.
Thanks for comparison. Sounds good I will give this show a shot since I've been lookin for more shows to get into.
On April 30 2013 06:29 jxx wrote: Just watched ep. 9 and it was awesome, pretty psyched for the upcoming war between them! And damn that princess chick is so beautiful *.*
Wow really ? I found her really unattractive, Lagherta on another hand O.O <3 Yeah, upcoming war is gonna be great, it was only a matter of time before Rollo betrays Ragnar.. I wonder what Ragnar will do with his new born son (if it's a son), will he take him with him ? And what about the princess, etc.. ?
On April 30 2013 06:29 jxx wrote: Just watched ep. 9 and it was awesome, pretty psyched for the upcoming war between them! And damn that princess chick is so beautiful *.*
Wow really ? I found her really unattractive, Lagherta on another hand O.O <3 Yeah, upcoming war is gonna be great, it was only a matter of time before Rollo betrays Ragnar.. I wonder what Ragnar will do with his new born son (if it's a son), will he take him with him ? And what about the princess, etc.. ?
I wouldn't be 100% sure that Rollo is betraying Ragnar. Maybe they planned it.
The older actor of Bjorn, god damn he looks physically big and looks exactly like the young actor himself. Pretty spot on, so far I am enjoying what the direction the show is going.
On March 18 2014 11:01 NNLBboy wrote: The older actor of Bjorn, god damn he looks physically big and looks exactly like the young actor himself. Pretty spot on, so far I am enjoying what the direction the show is going.
On March 18 2014 11:01 NNLBboy wrote: The older actor of Bjorn, god damn he looks physically big and looks exactly like the young actor himself. Pretty spot on, so far I am enjoying what the direction the show is going.
Man this show is like a gift that keep on giving, I cant believe how much I enjoyed this show. There is no complicated plot line like those GoT or Rome, it's just a show about a bunch of vikings with cool beards being awesome, and I love every minutes of it.
Picked this show up a couple of weeks ago and finished watching all episodes now. I like it but its nothing compared to shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad. The characters lack depth and the Story isnt great and predictable most of the time. Its easy entertainment however, lots of action and the story is fast paced.
It would have been great if they had put more historical accuracy into it. Sure, the story and characters can be fictional, but it would have been interesting to see how the vikings really lived, what equipment the warriors had, what family meant to them, how they got married etc. Instead the scenes shown dont really depict the truth. For example the marriage between Floki and Helga is similar to the christian one (just a bit more wild) and the warriors seem to lack equipment, most of them dont even have chainmail, noone has a helmet and some go full berserk with 2 one-handed axes. Cant really imagine that it went down that way. A bit disappointing imo.
But overall still a good show and iam desperatly waiting for the 9th episode
On April 20 2014 20:28 TerransHill wrote: Picked this show up a couple of weeks ago and finished watching all episodes now. I like it but its nothing compared to shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad. The characters lack depth and the Story isnt great and predictable most of the time. Its easy entertainment however, lots of action and the story is fast paced.
It would have been great if they had put more historical accuracy into it. Sure, the story and characters can be fictional, but it would have been interesting to see how the vikings really lived, what equipment the warriors had, what family meant to them, how they got married etc. Instead the scenes shown dont really depict the truth. For example the marriage between Floki and Helga is similar to the christian one (just a bit more wild) and the warriors seem to lack equipment, most of them dont even have chainmail, noone has a helmet and some go full berserk with 2 one-handed axes. Cant really imagine that it went down that way. A bit disappointing imo.
But overall still a good show and iam desperatly waiting for the 9th episode
Most vikings didn't wear chainmail, it was something rare and costs very much. Only way to get it for a normal man was to get it from a body, not something they could pay for. Same for swords, swords are worth much more then axes and therefore a commen man could not afford one. Vikings had good light axes to use and so seeing them use those in the series aint too weird I guess. I don't know about why they aren't wearing helmets, maybe they are also rare and costly ?
About the characters, Ragnar is an old hero from legends :
On April 21 2014 20:03 Vladix wrote: Most vikings didn't wear chainmail, it was something rare and costs very much. Only way to get it for a normal man was to get it from a body, not something they could pay for. Same for swords, swords are worth much more then axes and therefore a commen man could not afford one. Vikings had good light axes to use and so seeing them use those in the series aint too weird I guess. I don't know about why they aren't wearing helmets, maybe they are also rare and costly ?
About the characters, Ragnar is an old hero from legends :
I clicked your links and you had me reading about this stuff for about an hour. Actually came across something quite interesting on wikipedia. It is a list of the monarchs of Northumbria and there is one king by the name of Aethelstan of Wessex. His reign began nearly 50 years after King Ecgberht II (Does anyone know if the king in the show is I or II?) which would make Aethelstan to old, but it is a tv show. So now i'm thinking maybe Aethelstan will have a much bigger impact on the show than I once believed.
On April 20 2014 20:28 TerransHill wrote: Picked this show up a couple of weeks ago and finished watching all episodes now. I like it but its nothing compared to shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad. The characters lack depth and the Story isnt great and predictable most of the time. Its easy entertainment however, lots of action and the story is fast paced.
Pretty satisfying finale. More of a happy ending than I'm used to with other shows, but I'm not surprised people didn't end up siding with Horik. He didn't carry himself like a king and had an apparent air of desperation. Not to mention he walked them in to a trap against the English, against Ragnar's better judgement, which doesn't instill much confidence.
One question I have is, what was Floki doing with Rollo. He clearly still holds a grudge from the beginning of the season, but did he actually try to poison him? What would he gain from faking it if no one was there to witness it? Or did he just get a bad batch of mushrooms?
Anyways, looking forward to the next season of Everybody Loves Ragnar.
I still have 1episode left to watch until the end of the season but there is one thing that bothers me.. Why the fuck did Floki become Horik's bitch all of a sudden ? He was one of the closest man/friend of Ragnar and out of the blue he decides to turn his coat and hate on Ragnar for no reason ? That makes no sense to me. Also lol@Athelstan turning his coat ONCE AGAIN wtf ^^ (for the best though I liked him way more as a Viking :p)
On May 04 2014 04:01 Lylat wrote: I still have 1episode left to watch until the end of the season but there is one thing that bothers me.. Why the fuck did Floki become Horik's bitch all of a sudden ? He was one of the closest man/friend of Ragnar and out of the blue he decides to turn his coat and hate on Ragnar for no reason ? That makes no sense to me. Also lol@Athelstan turning his coat ONCE AGAIN wtf ^^ (for the best though I liked him way more as a Viking :p)
On May 04 2014 04:01 Lylat wrote: I still have 1episode left to watch until the end of the season but there is one thing that bothers me.. Why the fuck did Floki become Horik's bitch all of a sudden ? He was one of the closest man/friend of Ragnar and out of the blue he decides to turn his coat and hate on Ragnar for no reason ? That makes no sense to me. Also lol@Athelstan turning his coat ONCE AGAIN wtf ^^ (for the best though I liked him way more as a Viking :p)
Watch the goddamn last episode :D
Haha indeed. But I think they could have make this less obvious by giving some reasons for Floki to hate on Ragnar. Still a good finale though ! Oh and Bjorn is such a fucking badass, almost as much as his uncle
On May 04 2014 04:01 Lylat wrote: I still have 1episode left to watch until the end of the season but there is one thing that bothers me.. Why the fuck did Floki become Horik's bitch all of a sudden ? He was one of the closest man/friend of Ragnar and out of the blue he decides to turn his coat and hate on Ragnar for no reason ? That makes no sense to me. Also lol@Athelstan turning his coat ONCE AGAIN wtf ^^ (for the best though I liked him way more as a Viking :p)
Watch the goddamn last episode :D
Haha indeed. But I think they could have make this less obvious by giving some reasons for Floki to hate on Ragnar. Still a good finale though ! Oh and Bjorn is such a fucking badass, almost as much as his uncle
Ragnar said that floki wasn't trustworthy and that horik "understood the gods" more then ragnar. Which is probably true as Ragnar (and by extension his sons) represents the massive shift in their society. Before they were just a bunch of raiders that pillaged other poor as dirt pagans. after words they leave their mark on the world from greece Italy russia denmark england and france.
Re-watching Season 1 and the first episode the Earl says they will go East and raid Russian lands. Was that area known as Russia yet? That and weren't there already Viking Settlements in said areas so why would they raid where their people inhabit?
I recently watched the whole show, not knowing that the next season starts on Tuesday. Lucky timing I guess. I have a question regarding the last episode. By killing King Horik, does Ragnar become king himself, or does Horik's son (if his life was spared as Horik asked) succeed his father? Ragnar became earl by killing Earl Haraldson in a formal duel, so I assume one can also win the title of king simply by slaying the reigning king. I just think this kind of rule would not allow a society to be successful as it would lead to mass assassinations, extremely unstable governments, constant civil wars and short reigns.
I think there was some sort of sucession, but they did have constant civil wars and pretty short reigns, at least in the early middle ages. This guy in particular has a nice story, I know it's a bit later in time but still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_II_of_Denmark
On February 21 2015 03:56 Scorch wrote: Is noone interested in this show at all? Season 3 has begun! And everybody has a new haircut!
Having only watched the first episode of season 1, i am extremely excited to know this bolded information. Nothing could be more important. You can assume the K word is at the end of this.
On February 14 2015 19:17 MWY wrote: I think there was some sort of sucession, but they did have constant civil wars and pretty short reigns, at least in the early middle ages. This guy in particular has a nice story, I know it's a bit later in time but still: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_II_of_Denmark
In the beginning of what we call "the middle ages" the whole King/Succession thing wasn't exactly "binding". So a general/village chief with a strong army could become King by sheer force. Later in these times your neighbours/other kings would most likely not accept you and throw you from your throne (when they can).
On July 14 2015 10:49 shin_toss wrote: Due to GoT's absence atm. I just downloaded 1st 2nd seasons of this is this good what should I expect? Historical accuracy? Acting? Plot? Battles?
The acting is good.
It's got a religious plot or theme to it.
The action/fighting and the actors are what makes the show good.
It's no Game of Thrones (or a show with the same budget) but it's enjoyable to me.
It's basically a poor man's Game of Thrones with less intrigue, complexity, epicness and sex, but with more action and grit. Not the greatest show ever, but perfectly watchable.
The thing that bugs me the most is the absense of color in the costumes. They a.l wear some strange leather biker gear. with random studs and weird sown on rings. were is the mail? and the clothes in bright colors? If you tell everyone how accurate your show is, at least try....
I'll spare you all the rant about the fighting scenes^^
Yeah the costumes are pretty atrocious. The fighting scenes might not be realistic but they are entertaining.
Something that I personally found quite funny because I live close to the village: In the 2nd season they introduce Hedeby with the onscreen text Hedeby - Denmark, which makes no sense because back then there was no Denmark and nowadays it is part of Germany. In the 3rd season they changed it to Hedeby - Scandinavia, which is culturally understandable but in most peoples eyes still wrong. We fought 2 wars over it, Schleswig is german clay
On July 14 2015 18:13 Scorch wrote: It's basically a poor man's Game of Thrones with less intrigue, complexity, epicness and sex, but with more action and grit. Not the greatest show ever, but perfectly watchable.
I've enjoyed this show more than GoT. Especially later seasons of GoT have been garbage being thrown at the screen.
On July 14 2015 21:00 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: aha someone watching scholagladiatoria?
Yeah the costumes are pretty atrocious. The fighting scenes might not be realistic but they are entertaining.
Something that I personally found quite funny because I live close to the village: In the 2nd season they introduce Hedeby with the onscreen text Hedeby - Denmark, which makes no sense because back then there was no Denmark and nowadays it is part of Germany. In the 3rd season they changed it to Hedeby - Scandinavia, which is culturally understandable but in most peoples eyes still wrong. We fought 2 wars over it, Schleswig is german clay
there are actually other sources than internetvideos :D Not that scholagladiatoria makes bad videos, its a really decent starting point.
On July 14 2015 21:00 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: aha someone watching scholagladiatoria?
Yeah the costumes are pretty atrocious. The fighting scenes might not be realistic but they are entertaining.
Something that I personally found quite funny because I live close to the village: In the 2nd season they introduce Hedeby with the onscreen text Hedeby - Denmark, which makes no sense because back then there was no Denmark and nowadays it is part of Germany. In the 3rd season they changed it to Hedeby - Scandinavia, which is culturally understandable but in most peoples eyes still wrong. We fought 2 wars over it, Schleswig is german clay
there are actually other sources than internetvideos :D Not that scholagladiatoria makes bad videos, its a really decent starting point.
Of course, it's just that scholagladiatoria used the same comparison "leather biker gear", which made me take the guess
On July 14 2015 18:13 Scorch wrote: It's basically a poor man's Game of Thrones with less intrigue, complexity, epicness and sex, but with more action and grit. Not the greatest show ever, but perfectly watchable.
I've enjoyed this show more than GoT. Especially later seasons of GoT have been garbage being thrown at the screen.
comparing historical fiction with fantasy is ridiculous. i love both shows but they are completely different. a show like game of thrones with such a large budget and a myriad of characters isn't necessarily more complex or epic than vikings which is rooted in history/legend. i prefer vikings more especially due to magnetic characters like ragnar and lagertha.
On July 14 2015 18:13 Scorch wrote: It's basically a poor man's Game of Thrones with less intrigue, complexity, epicness and sex, but with more action and grit. Not the greatest show ever, but perfectly watchable.
Especially later seasons of GoT have been garbage being thrown at the screen.
Your standards are ridiculous. Sure, say you're not a fan, or that you dislike it but to call GoT garbage is the equivalent of a guy who wants to feel superior trashing celebrity actresses as unbangable 2/10's
holy fucking shit, are u kidding me? Season 4 is tomorrow??? FUCKKK YAAA
I thought it was only 2 seasons long. But found out it was 3 seasons long and that I still have 2 eps left this season.
Man I thank Artour for discovering Vikings for me. At first I thought Vikings was pretty lame, all during Season 1 I kept hating on all the characters and how annoying they were. Then Season 2 happened and I started to give a shit about some of the characters but the fighting was so badass. Now Season 3 is just ultimate awesome. The fighting is so goddamn good. And Torsten... WHYD YOU FUCKING DIE TORSTEN U SOAB!!! WHYYY
Anyways, story is okayish, just everyone being corrupt lol nothing shocking. I really enjoy the interaction between Ragnar and Floki though. Ragnar's character is extremely dynamic and round meanwhile Floki is static and flat. Hope they stay true to their characters and dont develop it into something stupid just for a cheap "twist". Keep their interaction going cause I think it has a lot to offer.
Dat Lagertha doe... WOOO~!
edit: Just finished the last 2 eps of Season 3. that was cool. the misdirection in the last episode was so generic though lol.
Season 1 was okayish but very cheesy at times. Currently I'm stuck in season 2 and just can't enjoy it. So many things seem entirely illogical to me. The king being super weak resources-wise, I mean he acts as if some random townschief is the saviour of his kingdom and later joins him in his raids with very few men, while making some ridiculously dumb decisions regarding jarl Borg. The rebellion of jarl Borg makes sense, but how the whole plot develops seems off to me, mostly because that king seems like an idiot and that there's some massive plot armour on the characters.
I cringe at every fight, it was aired on the history channel initally right? Why can't they be realistic. :S I get it, they were super imba pagan warriors, but that doesn't mean that god-fearing Britons clad in armor on horses are made of paper. Anyway I wanted to ask, is season 3 more of the same or does it actually make sense?
At this point the series is similar to any other modern series with historical accuracy and/or logical plotlines taking a backseat to drama and intrigue, which is probably one of the biggest reasons for its success. It is obvious why people would expect a more realistic show (because History channel etc.) but that isn't what Vikings is. It would have been more fitting if it aired on any of the drama series networks like HBO or Stars.
But to answer your question, season 3 is just more of the same. Personally I enjoy it for what it is but to each his own.
On February 20 2016 22:11 Bojas wrote: Spoilers of season 1-2 below.
Season 1 was okayish but very cheesy at times. Currently I'm stuck in season 2 and just can't enjoy it. So many things seem entirely illogical to me. The king being super weak resources-wise, I mean he acts as if some random townschief is the saviour of his kingdom and later joins him in his raids with very few men, while making some ridiculously dumb decisions regarding jarl Borg. The rebellion of jarl Borg makes sense, but how the whole plot develops seems off to me, mostly because that king seems like an idiot and that there's some massive plot armour on the characters.
I cringe at every fight, it was aired on the history channel initally right? Why can't they be realistic. :S I get it, they were super imba pagan warriors, but that doesn't mean that god-fearing Britons clad in armor on horses are made of paper. Anyway I wanted to ask, is season 3 more of the same or does it actually make sense?
Are you referring to King Horik? Kings doesn't necessarily mean you have ten of thousands of troops, it is possible that he has just control of some villages with a handful of men each and a huge land, And Ragnar has more influence than Horik bec of his success in Raiding the west (for the first time), regarding fights/battles, never seen a series or movies with actual realistic fights, its a TV show and realistic = less entertainting, also you have to consider the budget, they don't have a budget like HBO has.
Anyway, wow S4 quality improved a lot.. judging from Ep1 at least. Feel bad for Floki tho :/ . And Bjorn going full revenant
It's getting so bad Why are they following the plots in England and Paris? It's called 'Vikings' not 'Franks'... Also, the show has never been about the dialogues but these last episodes were ridiculous xD I still don't know why they introduced the Chinese girl character if it was to kill her off so fast..
Anyway, mid-season finale is this week, maybe we'll finally see some more action!
Why is it getting so bad? for me its the best season so far, the visuals this season really improved. They show Paris scenes because 1. Rollo is there 2. its not bad to show what is happening on the other side, it is relevant since its the Vikings enemy
England parts are there because it is relevant to the storyline in the future (don't wanna spoil it though) . Imo it would be boring if they are just showing 1 storyline for 4 seasons its like GoT only showing westeros storyline, LotR showing only the good guys scene.
And also History Channel announced that EP10 is just a mid season finale. So we are getting 20 eps for this season (maybe final season?) not sure if they gonna show it immediately after ep10.
Imo they will kill Ragnar off in the next Episode. Seer told him that he'll die when the blind man sees again, I think he referred to Floki's visions. Pure speculation though but enough for me to watch the next episode despite the show getting much weaker recently imo.
On April 21 2016 02:56 AngryMag wrote: Imo they will kill Ragnar off in the next Episode. Seer told him that he'll die when the blind man sees again, I think he referred to Floki's visions. Pure speculation though but enough for me to watch the next episode despite the show getting much weaker recently imo.
I assume that Floki will help Ragnar to prove his wife slept with others (Harbard)
Not sure it will be smart to cut obviously the most charismatic character in a whole series so far, that may affect viewer numbers at least.
Holy shit I'm loving this show more and more. It can't just be 10 more episodes, cause if you know anything of history, the best is yet to come. Know its lame to compare it to GoT, but I'm having a much better connection to Vikings. Although it's not magic in Vikings, you get the feeling it is, cause they believe in it. Today death is horrible, back then, it was something to celebrate. The vibes I get from this is so slick.
Okay.. Im really excited on whats gonna happen next episode, and what is Ragnar's plan. Im confused if he is in Wessex or Northumbria, also I thought they gonna kill Rollo, but i guess its some kind of baptism or something
Basically a punishment that might result in death or injury.
Nothing religious about it.
Thanks.
This weeks episode is good, if I haven't checked History's fb page I wouldn't know it was Odin lol, forgot that he got 1 eye. I think FLoki is crazy and gonna die soon too lol
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qRlZYAo.jpg)
